PDA

View Full Version : last shot moderation



chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 01:38 PM
by 'last shot moderation', i mean those instances where a moderator comes into a thread and closes it and includes an inflammatory statement that can't be given response, as the thread is closed. this strikes me as unfair and disrespectful.

mips
August 30th, 2008, 02:08 PM
I have also seen a few of theses where the mod gives his/her personal opinion and then closes it in the same post.

I don't think this is right either, reminds me of a mod that is no longer here.

If you are going to moderate the thread then close it stating the reasons from a CoC perspective and don't throw in your own personal opinion on the topic before doing so. Really low if you ask me.

EnGorDiaz
August 30th, 2008, 02:15 PM
i got a red card and two infractions for saying dont preach the apple eula to me i said to him can i compromise im not saying names and he didnt reply now my post count never ever goes up

i offered to compromise and he didnt reply i thought it was extremely unfair he gave me a redcard and 2 points

EnGorDiaz
August 30th, 2008, 02:18 PM
i cant get thanks points or anything now bcus a "certain mod gave me the real redcard for mentioning something illegal i wasnt saying hey here lets all do something illegal my personal choice and also it was about running 2 operating systems on the came computer i have made many discussions on this but this mod strictly gave me the red card as if to say i am the boss of your decissions

EnGorDiaz
August 30th, 2008, 02:19 PM
I have also seen a few of theses where the mod gives his/her personal opinion and then closes it in the same post.

I don't think this is right either, reminds me of a mod that is no longer here.

If you are going to moderate the thread then close it stating the reasons from a CoC perspective and don't throw in your own personal opinion on the topic before doing so. Really low if you ask me.

extremely low good point

EnGorDiaz
August 30th, 2008, 02:20 PM
i wouldnt make a good mod lol meh i dnt like moderation much moderators are ok the role itself is sometimes very dirty and can lead you to making bad mistakes by accident

overdrank
August 30th, 2008, 02:23 PM
i wouldnt make a good mod lol meh i dnt like moderation much moderators are ok the role itself is sometimes very dirty and can lead you to making bad mistakes by accident

If you have a issue then I suggest you take it to the Resolution Center. :)

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 02:34 PM
(hm. this went well...)

Canis familiaris
August 30th, 2008, 02:37 PM
I dont exactly remember when this happened last time but has happened. And I agree with the OP that this should be avoided.

OrangeCrate
August 30th, 2008, 03:10 PM
(hm. this went well...)

I agree with you on this - I've seen it happen. Another issue that comes up on occasion, is a mod moderating a thread they're actively involved in. That's generally a no-no on forums. But overall, the mods do a fine job.

jpeddicord
August 30th, 2008, 03:28 PM
I agree with you on this - I've seen it happen. Another issue that comes up on occasion, is a mod moderating a thread they're actively involved in. That's generally a no-no on forums. But overall, the mods do a fine job.

We really really try to avoid this - the moderator of a thread really shouldn't be participating, so if there is an issue even mods will use the post report feature to get someone else to handle it.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 03:34 PM
Another issue that comes up on occasion, is a mod moderating a thread they're actively involved in.

i brought that up in laroza's OPP moderation thread. he said "About the moderators not moderating discussions they are involved in, we already do that." unless that's a recent change, i don't know where he got that idea.

Joeb454
August 30th, 2008, 03:56 PM
As jacobmp92 mentioned - we try to avoid moderating threads we're active in. I've seen reports from other mods because they were active in the thread.

ugm6hr
August 30th, 2008, 03:56 PM
i brought that up in laroza's OPP moderation thread. he said "About the moderators not moderating discussions they are involved in, we already do that." unless that's a recent change, i don't know where he got that idea.

That has been a recommendation to moderators for some time.

However, we often post within the thread if action is being taken in order to either:
1. Clarify why a thread is closed.
2. Ensure the thread continuity is maintained (removing posts can sometimes confuse the timeline of a thread).

In doing this, it is sometimes difficult to separate comments on behaviour generating moderator action and personal opinions; hence the appearance of "last shot moderation". In this situation, if members feel a last shot comment is made, raise it as a report. Administrators and other moderators will then be able to review the situation and advise as appropriate.

If a last shot is made by a moderator who has already been involved in the thread who also closes the thread themselves, this is obviously unfair. However, there are reasons why this can occur.

From a users viewpoint, it may not be clear whether the moderator posting and closing are the same or not, and the timing of a final moderator post may well be coincidental. Additionally, the forum software grants moderators permissions unavailable to other users without necessarily making that fact clear to the moderator posting. For example, it is possible for moderators to reply within a closed thread, without being alerted that the thread has been closed (by another moderator), other than by the (relatively small) Thread Closed marker at the bottom left. Hence, a last shot moderation can be generated accidentally. Again - report the post, and it will be alerted to both the moderator posting (who may then choose to delete their final post etc) and other administrators and moderators.

I hope that this helps to explain how these events can occur, without deliberate malice on the part of us moderators.

pp.
August 30th, 2008, 04:01 PM
...we try to not avoid moderating threads we're active in

come again?

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 04:04 PM
i'm not talking about accidents. i'm talking about the situation where a moderator comes in and says something like "you're all horrible people for saying the things you have in this thread and i'm closing it!" SLAM!!!1

Joeb454
August 30th, 2008, 04:06 PM
come again?

Sorry, I went to say one thing, realised it didn't make sense, and changed my mind ;)

I've edited that post to make a little more sense now

pp.
August 30th, 2008, 04:09 PM
...
I've edited that post to make a little more sense now

Oh, ah. Now it does. :popcorn:

fiddledd
August 30th, 2008, 04:16 PM
i'm not talking about accidents. i'm talking about the situation where a moderator comes in and says something like "you're all horrible people for saying the things you have in this thread and i'm closing it!" SLAM!!!1

Well that sounds a bit like "Give me my ball, I'm going home". I don't remember seeing that, maybe I post in the wrong threads.:)

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 04:23 PM
i'm not talking about accidents. i'm talking about the situation where a moderator comes in and says something like "you're all horrible people for saying the things you have in this thread and i'm closing it!" SLAM!!!1

Ok you're all horrible people for saying the things you have in this thread and I'm closing it! SLAM!!!1.

Oh wait I just posted.... /me hits the report button instead.

Seriously all the moderators are human and in the past there have been mistakes , as their will be in the future. That is why there is a resolution center and a forum council.

Can I say that without a doubt the mods are infallible? Of course not. I have made mistakes in the past and have reversed my position. I have been lenient in a few cases where other may have not been so kind, and I have been harsh in cases where some thought it was a bit much. Moderating is a judgement call and sometimes involves much more than what meets the public eye.

As a newer member of the staff I see a lot of things going on behind the scenes that I was not aware of as a normal member of the community. I had suspected most of it but you never really understand until you walk in the shoes of a staff member. Considering the volume of posts and reports I think the staff does pretty well overall. is there room for improvement? Of course there is and we put forth a good faith effort to do so.

All I can say is if you see something you do not agree with or understand, feel free to hit the report button. All reports are logged and will be looked at. You won't hear the result or the reasoning behind the result (unless you see burnt beans), because of privacy concerns.

ugm6hr
August 30th, 2008, 04:25 PM
i'm not talking about accidents. i'm talking about the situation where a moderator comes in and says something like "you're all horrible people for saying the things you have in this thread and i'm closing it!" SLAM!!!1

In the situation where the moderator has not posted in thread before, this would fall into the "closing this thread - and here's why" category. Obviously, the language chosen in your example may be poor, but I suspect you are exaggerating for effect. In any case, this is what moderators are supposed to do - stop people from being insulting to each other (or the public at large).

If the moderator has been actively participating in the thread prior to the closing post, this is obviously an abuse of moderator privileges and should be reported appropriately.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 04:37 PM
i'm suggesting a stricter guideline for the moderators in this regard. something like "moderators will not make personal comments when closing a thread." this would restrict thread closing posts by a moderator to something like "this thread is being closed because it is in violation of coc item # whatever" or, "this thread is being closed for a cooling off period", etc.

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 04:43 PM
i'm suggesting a stricter guideline for the moderators in this regard. something like "moderators will not make personal comments when closing a thread." this would restrict thread closing posts by a moderator to something like "this thread is being closed because it is in violation of coc item # whatever" or, "this thread is being closed for a cooling off period", etc.

IMHO that is not an unreasonable guideline, and in fact its one that is already followed in a lot of cases. I don't like "canned responses" but as a guideline it is certainly serviceable.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 04:48 PM
In the situation where the moderator has not posted in thread before, this would fall into the "closing this thread - and here's why" category. Obviously, the language chosen in your example may be poor, but I suspect you are exaggerating for effect. In any case, this is what moderators are supposed to do - stop people from being insulting to each other (or the public at large).

If the moderator has been actively participating in the thread prior to the closing post, this is obviously an abuse of moderator privileges and should be reported appropriately.

i knew i could count on laroza for an example - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5691663#post5691663



This is an odd first post. It could be blog spam.

I am going to close this thread (note, I know God exists) for now.

laroza has also closed threads that he has participated in, especially where religion is concerned, often with a parting blow. i don't mean to pick on him, but i can't think of anyone else as an example at the moment.

i wasn't exaggerating for effect. i was trying to avoid pointing the finger at specific moderators as i think this is a practice that can be eliminated with a simple rule. it's not necessary to moderation of these forums and should be ruled out.

OrangeCrate
August 30th, 2008, 04:57 PM
As a newer member of the staff I see a lot of things going on behind the scenes that I was not aware of as a normal member of the community. I had suspected most of it but you never really understand until you walk in the shoes of a staff member. Considering the volume of posts and reports I think the staff does pretty well overall. is there room for improvement? Of course there is and we put forth a good faith effort to do so.


While a grad student at a major university, I was a global moderator on the university forums, with 40,000+ members. Dealing with the "volume of posts and reports", particularly on a weekend, was staggering to say the least.

I simply find it hard to believe that on a support forum like this, with the army of moderators here, that it ever gets to a primal scream level, that would require moderators to shoot before aiming, and I think that's basically what Fuscia is alluding to.

I would assume that new mods get some coaching on the rights and wrongs of the position, or there is at least, a code of conduct they are required to read and adhere to. In our case, a global moderator watched new mods very carefully to quickly weed out the bullies, and passive aggressive personalities that are inevitable with moderation responsibilities, and I would assume that administrators here, do the same.

As I said in my original post in this thread, personally, I think overall, that the mods do a fine job, and the amount of conversation this thread has generated, reinforces that they wish to maintain a high level of professionalism.

Sometimes, just bringing a subject up, as Fuscia did, causes people to pause, and self assess their actions and behavior. Moderators and users alike.

Canis familiaris
August 30th, 2008, 04:59 PM
i knew i could count on laroza for an example - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5691663#post5691663

Personally I wouldn't think THIS example as an abuse of mod power.
And I think it is unkind to pinpoint a particular forum user like this.

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 05:06 PM
I simply find it hard to believe that on a support forum like this, with the army of moderators here, that it ever gets to a primal scream level, that would require moderators to shoot before aiming, and I think that's basically what Fuscia is alluding to - pay attention to your manners, and think before you moderate.

Although there may seem to be an army of moderators not all are active at all times (as you would expect from a volunteer organization. I'm not making an excuse here I'm just stating a fact :) I will not argue the point of paying attention and following the CoC since that is absolutely correct.






Sometimes, just bringing a subject up, as Fuscia did, causes people to pause, and self assess their actions and behavior. Moderators and users alike.
I agree wholeheartedly. If more folks did this the forums would be a better place.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Personally I wouldn't think THIS example as an abuse of mod power.
And I think it is unkind to pinpoint a particular forum user like this.

i didn't want to, but i was accused of exaggerating and felt i had to provide an example. i'm not trying to embarrass or scold anyone with this thread. i'm just trying to make a suggestion that would be an improvement. it's the type of thing that can breed resentment, even when that was not even remotely the intent. moderation and the reasons behind it can be viewed much more calmly when the moderator is diplomatic, or even just matter of fact.

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Personally I wouldn't think THIS example as an abuse of mod power.
And I think it is unkind to pinpoint a particular forum user like this.

Forum moderators are used to being under the microscope :)

Canis familiaris
August 30th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Forum moderators are used to being under the microscope :)

I thought they were supposed to view the posts of this forum with the microscope. ;)

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 05:25 PM
I thought they were supposed to view the posts of this forum with the microscope. ;)

just leave the bunsen burner out, is all i'm saying. (b'dum-ching!1)

Canis familiaris
August 30th, 2008, 05:29 PM
just leave the bunsen burner out, is all i'm saying. (b'dum-ching!1)
In simple English Please (didn't understand the expression) :)

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 05:36 PM
I thought they were supposed to view the posts of this forum with the microscope. ;)

honestly that is a huge hazard of moderating- looking with the microscope rather than seeing the broader picture.

schauerlich
August 30th, 2008, 05:36 PM
In simple English Please (didn't understand the expression) :)

A bunsen burner is a tool commonly used in chemistry labs to heat stuff up. They sort of look like metal candles, except much hotter.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 05:37 PM
A bunsen burner is a tool commonly used in chemistry labs to heat stuff up. They sort of look like metal candles, except much hotter.

thanks.

Canis familiaris
August 30th, 2008, 05:40 PM
A bunsen burner is a tool commonly used in chemistry labs to heat stuff up. They sort of look like metal candles, except much hotter.

I know what Bunsen Burner is. I have studied Chemistry.
Seriously...


thanks.
I suppose that was off topic.

And hey did you ever react Red Phosphorus with Bromine Water? it's glorious.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 05:42 PM
I know what Bunsen Burner is. I have studied Chemistry.
Seriously...

you meant the "b'dum-ching" then? it's the best written equivalent i could come up with for the flam shot on a drum kit that often accompanies poor jokes made in nightclubs with bands.

Canis familiaris
August 30th, 2008, 05:44 PM
you meant the "b'dum-ching" then? it's the best written equivalent i could come up with for the flam shot on a drum kit that often accompanies poor jokes made in nightclubs with bands.

Oh well...
I guess I should clear out of this thread.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 05:47 PM
Oh well...
I guess I should clear out of this thread.

no, no. stay. there's plenty of room for all in my threads. have some popcorn.

:popcorn:

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 05:56 PM
i'm suggesting a stricter guideline for the moderators in this regard. something like "moderators will not make personal comments when closing a thread." this would restrict thread closing posts by a moderator to something like "this thread is being closed because it is in violation of coc item # whatever" or, "this thread is being closed for a cooling off period", etc.

I'd like to hear your thought on this post: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5694526&postcount=9

It could be interpreted as last shot moderation but could also be seen as I intended it to be- coc quote and explanation. I think a lot depends on the mood of the reader. Also it's a real pain in the neck to give such a complete response for such a simple action, but at times it could be warranted. I think that its overkill in most cases though ...

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Oh well...
I guess I should clear out of this thread.


no, no. stay. there's plenty of room for all in my threads. have some popcorn.

:popcorn:

This thread has actually become quite enlightening and has not turned out to be the bitchfest I had expected when I first read the title. Please stay and contribute as your opinions are welcome.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 06:06 PM
I'd like to hear your thought on this post: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5694526&postcount=9

It could be interpreted as last shot moderation but could also be seen as I intended it to be- coc quote and explanation. I think a lot depends on the mood of the reader. Also it's a real pain in the neck to give such a complete response for such a simple action, but at times it could be warranted. I think that its overkill in most cases though ...

it's fine, except for the last line - "The elitist attitude is not helpful when spreading the gospel of "Linus and Richard." it's not really a big deal from my perspective, but it implies that someone is being elitist and, if the thread is then closed, gives them no opportunity to defend themselves. the rest of your post was quite a nice interpretation of the rule, which i think is a good thing. the last line really wasn't necessary to that effort, in my view. i realize you probably meant it philosophically, but it crosses the line into the confusion zone. does that make sense?

Oldsoldier2003
August 30th, 2008, 06:11 PM
it's fine, except for the last line - "The elitist attitude is not helpful when spreading the gospel of "Linus and Richard." it's not really a big deal from my perspective, but it implies that someone is being elitist and, if the thread is then closed, gives them no opportunity to defend themselves. the rest of your post was quite a nice interpretation of the rule, which i think is a good thing. the last line really wasn't necessary to that effort, in my view. i realize you probably meant it philosophically, but it crosses the line into the confusion zone. does that make sense?

Indeed it does :) Actually, I put that line in there without explanation to see what the response in this thread would be. I'll revise the post since we've discussed it.

edit: as an aside, that is one of the recurring gripes about linux forums (elitist attitudes ) The UF has less occurrences per capita IMHO, but they still happen)

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 06:13 PM
Indeed it does :) Actually, I put that line in there without explanation to see what the response in this thread would be. I'll revise the post since we've discussed it.

you tricky devil!

jpeddicord
August 30th, 2008, 06:21 PM
you meant the "b'dum-ching" then? it's the best written equivalent i could come up with for the flam shot on a drum kit that often accompanies poor jokes made in nightclubs with bands.

For that purpose I always use http://instantrimshot.com.

It gets used so often I have it aliased to /irs in irssi.

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 06:29 PM
For that purpose I always use http://instantrimshot.com.

It gets used so often I have it aliased to /irs in irssi.

not to be picky, but that's not a rimshot. it's a flam followed with a crash cymbal. a rimshot is when the rim and the skin of the drum are struck simultaneously with one stick.

jpeddicord
August 30th, 2008, 07:38 PM
not to be picky, but that's not a rimshot. it's a flam followed with a crash cymbal. a rimshot is when the rim and the skin of the drum are struck simultaneously with one stick.

Well, it definitely works, even if the name is bad. :mrgreen:

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 08:10 PM
Well, it definitely works, even if the name is bad. :mrgreen:

it does, but i prefer less bloat.

LaRoza
August 30th, 2008, 09:45 PM
i'm suggesting a stricter guideline for the moderators in this regard. something like "moderators will not make personal comments when closing a thread." this would restrict thread closing posts by a moderator to something like "this thread is being closed because it is in violation of coc item # whatever" or, "this thread is being closed for a cooling off period", etc.

That is impossible. It is often up to the moderators personal opinions and interpretations to close a thread.



laroza has also closed threads that he has participated in, especially where religion is concerned, often with a parting blow. i don't mean to pick on him, but i can't think of anyone else as an example at the moment.


Really? Perhaps once I did, but I don't make religious threads a habit, and I do not moderate threads I take part in generally.

You say "especially" and "often" like it is a habit, but only give one example. The reason why I stated I know God exists was not a last shot.

You can put aside your biases and see my point of view on that matter. Often, when a person posts a religious thread and they are new and the thread is moderated, they often get offended and think it is because of the belief itself. I posted that to remove any hints of biases against the thread's topic.

And why do you care about that thread? The OP hasn't contacted me and it seems to be spam, which is normally deleted and the poster banned.

Sometimes I close threads without posting in it at all to avoid the inevitable flurry of PM's or questioning about it. You know, I never got a complaint when I did that. I guess I will do it more often...

chucky chuckaluck
August 30th, 2008, 11:06 PM
needs more thought

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 12:47 AM
i'm suggesting a stricter guideline for the moderators in this regard. something like "moderators will not make personal comments when closing a thread." this would restrict thread closing posts by a moderator to something like "this thread is being closed because it is in violation of coc item # whatever" or, "this thread is being closed for a cooling off period", etc.


That is impossible. It is often up to the moderators personal opinions and interpretations to close a thread.

i don't think so. i think moderation in a forum like this has to be more like the NFL where judgment can't be avoided rather than like olympic skating where controversy is where it's at. personally, i feel like you are torn between being a hothead and being a moderator. it's hard to bridge that gap and i think the forum would be better off if you chose hothead over moderator.

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 01:03 AM
i don't think so. i think moderation in a forum like this has to be more like the NFL where judgment can't be avoided rather than like olympic skating where controversy is where it's at.
We don't have clear lines, so it is often up the discretation of the mod in making decisions.


personally, i feel like you are torn between being a hothead and being a moderator. it's hard to bridge that gap and i think the forum would be better off if you chose hothead over moderator.

Ok...

I don't know what you mean by that.

aysiu
August 31st, 2008, 01:22 AM
The criticism is a valid one, but it really needs to be brought up on a case-by-case basis in the Resolution Center.

I may have been guilty of this offense in the past, but all moderators know in theory that you shouldn't moderate a thread in which you are participating, and if you close a thread, you shouldn't add in any contributions to the thread in the closing remarks.

Things are not always so clear-cut, of course.

Yes, if you're having a discussion about what people think about the vice presidential candidates in the US and a moderator closes the discussion with
This is getting too heated. People should cool off. And I hate Biden then that's definitely stepping out of line.

If, however, there's a thread about what people think of Black people and a moderator who did not participate in the thread otherwise closes it with
Many of these generalizations are borderline or explicitly racist, and I don't think as a forum we want to take the risk of this going further. I think that's perfectly kosher.

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 01:39 AM
We don't have clear lines, so it is often up the discretation of the mod in making decisions.


you're trying to blur the distinctions rather than define them. when we were discussing condoms in prison (obviously a matter of consent), you came out of nowhere with 'prison rape', scolding and an instant closing of the thread. i pm'ed you and you reopened the thread. you have been involved in religious discussions (somehow making the thread about china and tibet about catholicism) and when you didn't like the responses, you made an inflammatory remark and closed the thread. you have closed at least two threads about religion for no apparent reason before they even got off the ground. the purpose of a moderator in these forums is in the avoidance of anything other than total bliss. in my view, you've done the opposite by using your own personal judgment to moderate rather than the letter and intent of the coc.

ubuntu-freak
August 31st, 2008, 01:45 AM
I remember one occasion where a certain forum staffer closed a thread immediately after I posted something very witty, due to what had been said beforehand. Well, I hope that was the reason. Anywho, I never got the chance to be +1'd lol'd or :lolflag:'d at.

:(

KiwiNZ
August 31st, 2008, 03:39 AM
Of course a moderator will use personal judgement. You cannot judge with out it.

We don't have a calculator to make decision and the COC would be 2334 pages long and we would have to hire a team of lawyers to interpret it, and a team of legislators to draught clauses and amendments.

Like everyone the staff are fallible ,mistakes happen and that is why we have the Resolution Centre.


you're trying to blur the distinctions rather than define them. when we were discussing condoms in prison (obviously a matter of consent), you came out of nowhere with 'prison rape', scolding and an instant closing of the thread. i pm'ed you and you reopened the thread. you have been involved in religious discussions (somehow making the thread about china and tibet about catholicism) and when you didn't like the responses, you made an inflammatory remark and closed the thread. you have closed at least two threads about religion for no apparent reason before they even got off the ground. the purpose of a moderator in these forums is in the avoidance of anything other than total bliss. in my view, you've done the opposite by using your own personal judgment to moderate rather than the letter and intent of the coc.

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 03:39 AM
you're trying to blur the distinctions rather than define them. when we were discussing condoms in prison (obviously a matter of consent), you came out of nowhere with 'prison rape', scolding and an instant closing of the thread.

Sex in prisons is illegal in the State of California. And there were many jokes about prison rape in that thread, and I closed it. What is so wrong about that? People were making light of a horrible flaw in the justice system.



i pm'ed you and you reopened the thread. you have been involved in religious discussions (somehow making the thread about china and tibet about catholicism) and when you didn't like the responses

Actually, I merely pointed out that the situation in Tibet was just a well known example of that particular government's persecutation of religious people, and someone else decided to take that statement and go with it.

If you want to debate any instances of moderation, post in the Resolution Centre for each case. I believe the instance you mentioned were dealt with and resolved. In that thread were I posted before after it was closed, my posts weren't really dealing with the topic and were addressing minor points (and I should have used PM's for that, and that post was removed from the thread). In those other threads you mentioned, perhaps I did do something wrong. I don't remember them. If you want to have the issue addressed, post a link to the thread and your stance in the Resolution Centre instead of using this thread for it.

If we want to drag up past issues that are long past, and bring them up, is it only fair that I do the same? Shall I look up all the past issues you had in the forum, and drag them up and make you defend yourself?

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 03:40 AM
Like everyone the staff are fallible ,mistakes happen and that is why we have the Resolution Centre.

+1 And bringing up issues on other threads and calling moderators names and saying they shouldn't be mods is not the proper recourse.

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 03:41 AM
I remember one occasion where a certain forum staffer closed a thread immediately after I posted something very witty, due to what had been said beforehand. Well, I hope that was the reason. Anywho, I never got the chance to be +1'd lol'd or at.

:(

+1 :lol:

ubuntu-freak
August 31st, 2008, 05:55 AM
+1 :lol:


Do you hate the "LOL" flag too? I see it's missing from your post and my quote. Must be the first time I've ever used it. I just don't want people to think I'm like that hysterical laughing floating old fart from Mary Poppins.

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 05:57 AM
Do you hate the "LOL" flag too? I see it's missing from your post and my quote. Must be the first time I've ever used it. I just don't want people to think I'm like that hysterical laughing floating old fart from Mary Poppins.

I hate it with a passion.

I edit it out of every quote and I never use it.

If it were up to me, I'd give infractions to people who use it.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0106.gif

ubuntu-freak
August 31st, 2008, 06:06 AM
I hate it with a passion.

I edit it out of every quote and I never use it.

If it were up to me, I'd give infractions to people who use it.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0106.gif


+1

I actually feel dirty for using it in my post, and I wasn't even using it to laugh at anything.

cyberdork33
August 31st, 2008, 06:41 AM
I hate it with a passion.

I edit it out of every quote and I never use it.

If it were up to me, I'd give infractions to people who use it.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0106.gif
I suggest the same for the popcorn and the guitar too.

schauerlich
August 31st, 2008, 06:49 AM
I suggest the same for the popcorn and the guitar too.

I wonder what will happen if I put a bunch of those in this post... :popcorn:

:guitar: :guitar: :guitar:

Oldsoldier2003
August 31st, 2008, 06:50 AM
I suggest the same for the popcorn and the guitar too.

the guitar should equal a fullblown ban...

schauerlich
August 31st, 2008, 06:51 AM
the guitar should equal a fullblown ban...

But I'm real hardcore!!!! :guitar:

Oldsoldier2003
August 31st, 2008, 06:52 AM
I wonder what will happen if I put a bunch of those in this post...

We'll have the forum admins redirect all of your posts to the banning game thread in CC Games...

mike1234
August 31st, 2008, 07:01 AM
I would like to see moderators use more "moderation" when dealing with so called infractions. The entire "open to interpretation" can be a bit lame. Sure the moderators have to decide when to act, but what if you're wrong? I received an infraction over a "you" comment. How do I not refer to you without saying you? Maybe I should have referred to them as "it"? Besides honest mistakes can be made. Why not just a warning? Maybe some of us didn't intend to insult someone in the first place. Respect for others should be extended to include entire countries and populations as well. No anti-american, anti-british, anti-french, etc. I dislike broad sweeping generalizations about anyone. And for the record, religion, race, creed, politics has lead to almost every war in recorded history. Threads should not be permitted with any of topics dealing with any of the aforementioned. It's just asking for trouble. I didn't join this forum to hear, or be the target of derogatory comments.

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/leadership-conduct

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 08:25 AM
I would like to see moderators use more "moderation" when dealing with so called infractions. The entire "open to interpretation" can be a bit lame. Sure the moderators have to decide when to act, but what if you're wrong? I received an infraction over a "you" comment. How do I not refer to you without saying you? Maybe I should have referred to them as "it"? Besides honest mistakes can be made. Why not just a warning? Maybe some of us didn't intend to insult someone in the first place. Respect for others should be extended to include entire countries and populations as well. No anti-american, anti-british, anti-french, etc. I dislike broad sweeping generalizations about anyone. And for the record, religion, race, creed, politics has lead to almost every war in recorded history. Threads should not be permitted with any of topics dealing with any of the aforementioned. It's just asking for trouble. I didn't join this forum to hear, or be the target of derogatory comments.


Ok, first don't say "moderators" when referring to a single incident. Also, realise unless you bring an issue up in the Resolution Centre, there is no way that specific action will ever be more than the action of a single person and can't be used to reflect the entire staff or policy.

(And religion, race and creed haven't been deciding factors in many wars (in fact, very, very, few. Most of them are about land, and some about power. Some use religion or other political groups to dinstinguish sides, but any characteristic can be used)

Note to everyone: Do not use this thread to discuss individual events that are best served by the Resolution Centre.

OrangeCrate
August 31st, 2008, 11:33 AM
<deleted>

Artificial Intelligence
August 31st, 2008, 01:11 PM
I must say, I rarely (as in very very very rarely) seen last shot moderation. I think it's around two years ago we'd an incendent(s).
Sure error/mistakes happens...mods are humans too ;)

But if it happen, please contact the mod and adresse the issue, if your not happy with the outcome; use the report button or resolution center.
Also keep the head cold, seen too many hotheaded people in the resolution forum shooting themselves in the feet. Alot could be handle painless and in good manner with a little gentle-man behavior. :KS


regards
A.I. Dude

gettinoriginal
August 31st, 2008, 02:19 PM
This thread has brought up some interesting questions in my mind, but not pro/anti moderation questions. I have read about "warnings", "red cards", "banning", and seen titles "moderator", "forum staff", and "administrator". Can someone point me to where to find descriptive information on these so I can better understand the input of these replies? And please forgive me, I am not trying to hijack this thread, just very curious.:confused:

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 02:43 PM
my apologies, laroza. i shouldn't have brought up specific incidents. i only did so because i was being accused of exaggerating and, as i didn't want the point dismissed, couldn't think of how else to defend the point. my intent was not to re-argue those specific issues. it was only to give some example of what i meant. i shouldn't gone that route.

i agree that moderators are fallible. we all are. that's why we have rules and guidelines to assist us so that we are not solely dependent on our personal judgement. rules and guidelines give us at least a partially objective structure limiting the scope of what subjectivity we must apply. in my view, a rule against 'last shot moderation' would be helpful to moderators. is there really an argument against having one?

jpeddicord
August 31st, 2008, 02:52 PM
my apologies, laroza. i shouldn't have brought up specific incidents. i only did so because i was being accused of exaggerating and, as i didn't want the point dismissed, couldn't think of how else to defend the point. my intent was not to re-argue those specific issues. it was only to give some example of what i meant. i shouldn't gone that route.

i agree that moderators are fallible. we all are. that's why we have rules and guidelines to assist us so that we are not solely dependent on our personal judgement. rules and guidelines give us at least a partially objective structure limiting the scope of what subjectivity we must apply. in my view, a rule against 'last shot moderation' would be helpful to moderators. is there really an argument against having one?

Technically there is, it's just a little more broad:

Posting and moderating in the same thread:
This is generally discouraged. If you have participated in a discussion and later find there is a problem in the thread contact the other staff and have someone else who is uninvolved moderate. The exception would be if no one is available, you can close the thread temporarily with a post stating that it will be looked at by a non-involved staff member as soon as possible. If you aren't sure what to do, get an administrator.


This thread has brought up some interesting questions in my mind, but not pro/anti moderation questions. I have read about "warnings", "red cards", "banning", and seen titles "moderator", "forum staff", and "administrator". Can someone point me to where to find descriptive information on these so I can better understand the input of these replies? And please forgive me, I am not trying to hijack this thread, just very curious.:confused:

Warnings/red cards/infractions are a part of the warning system this forum uses, and can result in restricted forum access or not being able to visit the forums ("banned") for a specified amount of time or forever.

Moderators and administrators are on forum staff. Moderators have the forum staff title, admins have the administrator title. Moderators can move, edit, delete, approve, infract, ban, and a few more. Administrators can do that and also manage user accounts, create new forums, set policies, and anything else the software allows.

See this announcement for more information (scroll down past the first announcement, it's about halfway down):
http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=48

OrangeCrate
August 31st, 2008, 02:56 PM
I forgot to add on additional thought, and rather than have readers search out one of my previous posts in this thread, and the tone of the conversation at that time, I'll just reproduce it here for reference. I encourage all to go back and see how this conversation fitted within the framework of the thread at that time:

Post #25


Originally Posted by Oldsoldier2003...
As a newer member of the staff I see a lot of things going on behind the scenes that I was not aware of as a normal member of the community. I had suspected most of it but you never really understand until you walk in the shoes of a staff member. Considering the volume of posts and reports I think the staff does pretty well overall. is there room for improvement? Of course there is and we put forth a good faith effort to do so.


Posted by OrangeCrate as additional thoughts...
While a grad student at a major university, I was a global moderator on the university forums, with 40,000+ members. Dealing with the "volume of posts and reports", particularly on a weekend, was staggering to say the least.

I simply find it hard to believe that on a support forum like this, with the army of moderators here, that it ever gets to a primal scream level, that would require moderators to shoot before aiming, and I think that's basically what Fuscia is alluding to.

I would assume that new mods get some coaching on the rights and wrongs of the position, or there is at least, a code of conduct they are required to read and adhere to. In our case, a global moderator watched new mods very carefully to quickly weed out the bullies, and passive aggressive personalities that are inevitable with moderation responsibilities, and I would assume that administrators here, do the same.

As I said in my original post in this thread, personally, I think overall, that the mods do a fine job, and the amount of conversation this thread has generated, reinforces that they wish to maintain a high level of professionalism.

Sometimes, just bringing a subject up, as Fuscia did, causes people to pause, and self assess their actions and behavior. Moderators and users alike.

Adding to the comment in Bold above:

Another part of the overview process of new mods, was to watch their frequency of posting in threads. Most mods came from the ranks, and had a fairly large post count.

Being promoted to the mod ranks was a little like a battlefield commission in the military. Generally, newly made officers are transfered to another unit, to start fresh with their new responsibilities.

On a forum, that's not possible of course, so new mods were coached and expected to stay out of the majority of conversations in order to maintain a third party moderating perspective.

If they continually jumped into threads to actively participate in the discussions, they were warned, and then given the choice of either remaining as a mod, or being reactivated as a user on the forums.

Most mods made the change flawlessly, but a couple just couldn't make the adjustment. When presented with the option of going back to the ranks, one became indignant, abusive, and was banned. The other, welcomed the change, and continued participation in the forums as a regular member. We announced his return, as "his choice".

Managing mods to maintain that third party perspective, alleviates many of the ill feelings, questions regarding their professionalism, and potential accusations of abuse, that are common on forums, including this one.

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 03:32 PM
Technically there is, it's just a little more broad:


Posting and moderating in the same thread:
This is generally discouraged. If you have participated in a discussion and later find there is a problem in the thread contact the other staff and have someone else who is uninvolved moderate. The exception would be if no one is available, you can close the thread temporarily with a post stating that it will be looked at by a non-involved staff member as soon as possible. If you aren't sure what to do, get an administrator.



it certainly implies that moderation should be done with objectivity and separation from the topic. 'last shot moderation' is in opposition to this guideline. if a moderator who has been participating in a thread, closes the thread with a parting blow that is inflammatory, that is both moderating and participating in the same post. if a moderator who has not been involved in the thread, suddenly comes in and closes it while saying something inflammatory, that's no different. it's bullying. i don't see why that can't be clearly made against the rules. a rule like that won't hamper moderation. a moderator can still say "as i'm concerned this thread may be getting out of hand, i'm closing it until i can get another moderator to look at it." and that other moderator can then say "this thread has gotten out of hand, so i'm closing it. sorry about that." then, if someone has a problem with it being closed, they can discuss it in the resolution center where that discussion should at least begin as just a difference of opinion. when a bullying remark is thrown in, it escalates the situation to a far more hostile level that really serves no purpose and is destructive. if moderation is made difficult by how much judgment is involved, then why not remove some of the less useful options?

jpeddicord
August 31st, 2008, 03:51 PM
it certainly implies that moderation should be done with objectivity and separation from the topic. 'last shot moderation' is in opposition to this guideline. if a moderator who has been participating in a thread, closes the thread with a parting blow that is inflammatory, that is both moderating and participating in the same post. if a moderator who has not been involved in the thread, suddenly comes in and closes it while saying something inflammatory, that's no different. it's bullying. i don't see why that can't be clearly made against the rules. a rule like that won't hamper moderation. a moderator can still say "as i'm concerned this thread may be getting out of hand, i'm closing it until i can get another moderator to look at it." and that other moderator can then say "this thread has gotten out of hand, so i'm closing it. sorry about that." then, if someone has a problem with it being closed, they can discuss it in the resolution center where that discussion should at least begin as just a difference of opinion. when a bullying remark is thrown in, it escalates the situation to a far more hostile level that really serves no purpose and is destructive. if moderation is made difficult by how much judgment is involved, then why not remove some of the less useful options?

Well, if an uninvolved moderator closes a thread with a bullying remark about the content, they are effectively participating and moderating in the thread at the same time, even if it is their first post in the thread. I see what you are saying though, and it could be a little better defined.

ugm6hr
August 31st, 2008, 03:57 PM
On a forum, that's not possible of course, so new mods were coached and expected to stay out of the majority of conversations in order to maintain a third party moderating perspective.

If they continually jumped into threads to actively participate in the discussions, they were warned, and then given the choice of either remaining as a mod, or being reactivated as a user on the forums.

Being nominated for mod-status is dependent on being an active member, and also assisting in the technical areas of the forum.

Hence, suggesting moderators stay out of any discussions would simply remove all the volunteer mods (who tend to help out).


if a moderator who has not been involved in the thread, suddenly comes in and closes it while saying something inflammatory, that's no different.
I think it depends on definitions of inflammatory. Would it be better to suggest a standard statement of "thread closed for review" is given? I feel (as in LaRoza's example quoted), that the mod in question was simply giving a reason for closing the thread, then explaining that the reason was not related to disagreement with the OP. From my viewpoint, this comment was entirely reasonable and justified.

While it would be nice to discuss this without examples, I think the options are:
1. All threads are closed without giving any justification.
2. Status quo.

A rule stating no inflammatory comments would not have changed my view on the quoted example.

As you can see - interpretation is never 100% the same - it is dependent on viewpoint, language use etc. We all try to be as civil as possible, but it is impossible to be kind when you are closing a thread due to someone's perceived inappropriate behaviour.

OrangeCrate
August 31st, 2008, 04:12 PM
Being nominated for mod-status is dependent on being an active member, and also assisting in the technical areas of the forum.

Hence, suggesting moderators stay out of any discussions would simply remove all the volunteer mods (who tend to help out).


Of course, I agree with you regarding technical questions. However, to the topic of this thread, participation in those types of threads is not, nor has been, in question in this conversation.

Edit:

Also, I said the "majority of conversations", you said "any discussions". That's a wrong assumption to extract from my comments.


On a forum, that's not possible of course, so new mods were coached and expected to stay out of the majority of conversations in order to maintain a third party moderating perspective.

In other words, help where you can, and should, but don't assume you're still one of the "good old boys" when you're a moderator. That lessens your credibility if, and when, it's necessary to moderate a thread or post.

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 04:40 PM
i personally think it would suck to be a moderator and not be able to continue to participate. i think not allowing mods to participate would increase the likelihood of 'prison guard' syndrome occurring.

OrangeCrate
August 31st, 2008, 04:49 PM
i personally think it would suck to be a moderator and not be able to continue to participate. i think not allowing mods to participate would increase the likelihood of 'prison guard' syndrome occurring.

No one is saying that either. As is taught in officer leadership schools, it's certainly O.K. to sit down and have a beer with the troops. Just make sure that you're the first one to leave the table.

Personally, I'm going to duck out of this thread. Anything more I could say would just be repeating myself.

Later, Sybil...

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 05:19 PM
No one is saying that either. As is taught in officer leadership schools, it's certainly O.K. to sit down and have a beer with the troops. Just make sure that you're the first one to leave the table.

Personally, I'm going to duck out of this thread. Anything more I could say would just be repeating myself.

Later, Sybil...

sybil? but i'm clark kent.

cyberdork33
August 31st, 2008, 05:35 PM
Another part of the overview process of new mods, was to watch their frequency of posting in threads. Most mods came from the ranks, and had a fairly large post count.

Being promoted to the mod ranks was a little like a battlefield commission in the military. Generally, newly made officers are transfered to another unit, to start fresh with their new responsibilities.

On a forum, that's not possible of course, so new mods were coached and expected to stay out of the majority of conversations in order to maintain a third party moderating perspective.

If they continually jumped into threads to actively participate in the discussions, they were warned, and then given the choice of either remaining as a mod, or being reactivated as a user on the forums.
Did you ever have anyone that actually wanted to be a mod in this forum? What good would it be to have a moderator that cannot discuss the items that they are familiar with. I would certainly decline an offer to be a moderator if it meant I had to give up helping in the support forums. I am only here at all for that reason.

I can't associate with military regulations because I disagree with many of those as well.

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 07:17 PM
my apologies, laroza. i shouldn't have brought up specific incidents. i only did so because i was being accused of exaggerating and, as i didn't want the point dismissed, couldn't think of how else to defend the point. my intent was not to re-argue those specific issues. it was only to give some example of what i meant. i shouldn't gone that route.

in my view, a rule against 'last shot moderation' would be helpful to moderators. is there really an argument against having one?

There already is such a rule, participating and moderating don't go well together. If a mod does something like that, the easiest thing would be to PM the mod and let them know the statement seemed to invite further debate or whatever and it should be removed. I'd do it (or clarify it at least).

Like that God statement I made. I got a PM from someone asking about it, and I explained it to them and they seemed satisfied.

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 09:10 PM
There already is such a rule, participating and moderating don't go well together. If a mod does something like that, the easiest thing would be to PM the mod and let them know the statement seemed to invite further debate or whatever and it should be removed. I'd do it (or clarify it at least).

i'm saying a mod shouldn't do that at all and that the rule needs to be more strongly put so that's clear.

LaRoza
August 31st, 2008, 10:12 PM
i'm saying a mod shouldn't do that at all and that the rule needs to be more strongly put so that's clear.

What would happen if a mod didn't act in line with this hard coded rule?

The same thing. Ask for removal or post in Resolution Centre, just like we do now.

KiwiNZ
August 31st, 2008, 10:18 PM
There are times when staff have participated in threads and the thread goes bad , they are the only staff member on line and need to act and moderate in the thread .

This is one example why we cannot have a hard and fast rule ,there must be room for discretion



i'm saying a mod shouldn't do that at all and that the rule needs to be more strongly put so that's clear.

chucky chuckaluck
August 31st, 2008, 10:34 PM
There are times when staff have participated in threads and the thread goes bad , they are the only staff member on line and need to act and moderate in the thread .

This is one example why we cannot have a hard and fast rule ,there must be room for discretion

i think you're missing my point. if the moderator has no choice but to moderate a thread he has been actively participating in, when he does moderate it by closing it, he doesn't need to say something obnoxious in doing so. he certainly doesn't need to add one more inflammatory comment that's part of the discussion in the post that he's also announcing the closing.



What would happen if a mod didn't act in line with this hard coded rule?

The same thing. Ask for removal or post in Resolution Centre, just like we do now.

if the rule were more clear, it would be easier to have the comment removed. even if it were the same process, i don't see why you object to the rule unless you think it's ok for the mod to add personal comments that posters might find obnoxious, while closing the thread.

KiwiNZ
August 31st, 2008, 11:45 PM
I agree and confess that I may have done so in the past. For which I do apologise.



i think you're missing my point. if the moderator has no choice but to moderate a thread he has been actively participating in, when he does moderate it by closing it, he doesn't need to say something obnoxious in doing so. he certainly doesn't need to add one more inflammatory comment that's part of the discussion in the post that he's also announcing the closing.
.

chucky chuckaluck
September 1st, 2008, 02:25 AM
I agree and confess that I may have done so in the past. For which I do apologise.

no apology necessary, mike. no one's perfect and i can understand how it can happen. the role of moderator probably causes it as much as anything (i wouldn't know. no one's ever been dumb enough to put me in that position). it's something that has bothered me and probably others and i thought it should be addressed. the last thing a moderator needs is to bring hostility on themselves, and really, whatever the intention might have been, that's all those comments really achieve. i applaud you for taking a candid look at yourself.

mips
September 1st, 2008, 10:33 AM
There are times when staff have participated in threads and the thread goes bad , they are the only staff member on line and need to act and moderate in the thread .

This is one example why we cannot have a hard and fast rule ,there must be room for discretion

In the scenario where the mod participating in the thread is the only mod around at the time and needs to moderate the thread I think the best course of action would be for that mod to closed the thread with one single comment, "Closed for staff review & feedback.", nothing more.

The thread is then closed and handled at a later stage when a different mod or admin becomes available. This would be a hard and fast rule as well as easy to implement.

KiwiNZ
September 1st, 2008, 11:40 AM
I agree


In the scenario where the mod participating in the thread is the only mod around at the time and needs to moderate the thread I think the best course of action would be for that mod to closed the thread with one single comment, "Closed for staff review & feedback.", nothing more.

The thread is then closed and handled at a later stage when a different mod or admin becomes available. This would be a hard and fast rule as well as easy to implement.

fiddledd
September 1st, 2008, 11:51 AM
Yes, it seems like some new guidance may be a good idea. But I think it will still happen at times. The mods are human, and there will be times when they are irritated, or even upset, by a thread's content. On these occasions they might add a comment that they later regret. If this happens very rarely, as I believe is the case, then I guess it's called a human error, rules wont completely eradicate this. And maybe we should be glad we don't have mods that just blindly stick to the rules. Just MHO.

mips
September 1st, 2008, 12:00 PM
I agree

"Make it so, Number One (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=make%20it%20so%2C%20Number%20One)" :)

chucky chuckaluck
September 1st, 2008, 03:34 PM
Yes, it seems like some new guidance may be a good idea. But I think it will still happen at times. The mods are human, and there will be times when they are irritated, or even upset, by a thread's content. On these occasions they might add a comment that they later regret. If this happens very rarely, as I believe is the case, then I guess it's called a human error, rules wont completely eradicate this. And maybe we should be glad we don't have mods that just blindly stick to the rules. Just MHO.

sure, there'll probably be some slippage, but it'll be clearer. when we slip, we're given infractions if we've slipped before. are mods infallible? no. let's look at the example engordiaz pointed out. the mod closing the thread said "too bad. thread closed." even if the mod were in the right, the comment "too bad" accomplishes absolutely nothing. there is nothing official conveyed by it at all. all it does is bully the posters in the thread. i'm sure that wasn't the intent, but that's the effect. making flippant remarks is a judgment call that some mods might feel they are justified in making now. but, self righteousness accomplishes nothing and if ruled out, most would comply easily without any disruption in performing their duties. in fact, a "sorry about that" might accomplish far more.

fiddledd
September 1st, 2008, 04:36 PM
sure, there'll probably be some slippage, but it'll be clearer. when we slip, we're given infractions if we've slipped before. are mods infallible? no. let's look at the example engordiaz pointed out. the mod closing the thread said "too bad. thread closed." even if the mod were in the right, the comment "too bad" accomplishes absolutely nothing. there is nothing official conveyed by it at all. all it does is bully the posters in the thread. i'm sure that wasn't the intent, but that's the effect. making flippant remarks is a judgment call that some mods might feel they are justified in making now. but, self righteousness accomplishes nothing and if ruled out, most would comply easily without any disruption in performing their duties. in fact, a "sorry about that" might accomplish far more.

Yeah, I don't actually disagree with you, in fact I posted here that I thought it was childish. My last post was just trying to say I think it will happen again.

cyberdork33
September 1st, 2008, 04:40 PM
sure, there'll probably be some slippage, but it'll be clearer. when we slip, we're given infractions if we've slipped before. are mods infallible? no. let's look at the example engordiaz pointed out. the mod closing the thread said "too bad. thread closed." even if the mod were in the right, the comment "too bad" accomplishes absolutely nothing. there is nothing official conveyed by it at all. all it does is bully the posters in the thread. i'm sure that wasn't the intent, but that's the effect. making flippant remarks is a judgment call that some mods might feel they are justified in making now. but, self righteousness accomplishes nothing and if ruled out, most would comply easily without any disruption in performing their duties. in fact, a "sorry about that" might accomplish far more.
He was replying directly to the comment the poster made about "preaching the eula crap". I think what Hymn To Life is saying is, "too bad, you get to follow the rules just like everyone else, even when you ask not to." He did not give an opinion on the subject, and it is pretty asinine in my opinion for a poster to to come into the forum and explicitly ask not to be told the rules. I still think his comment was OK in this instance, though maybe some words would have helped a bit, much like in the LaRoza example where he was trying to explain that he was not closing the thread for personal reasons.

chucky chuckaluck
September 1st, 2008, 05:09 PM
He was replying directly to the comment the poster made about "preaching the eula crap". I think what Hymn To Life is saying is, "too bad, you get to follow the rules just like everyone else, even when you ask not to." He did not give an opinion on the subject, and it is pretty asinine in my opinion for a poster to to come into the forum and explicitly ask not to be told the rules. I still think his comment was OK in this instance, though maybe some words would have helped a bit, much like in the LaRoza example where he was trying to explain that he was not closing the thread for personal reasons.

in that instance, i don't think there was anything wrong with what hymn to life said, but it still served no purpose. in other instances, those kinds of comments are a problem. at best, they accomplish nothing. not being able to say them takes no authority away from a moderator. an administrative action can always be explained in a professional manner.

Artificial Intelligence
September 1st, 2008, 05:34 PM
He was replying directly to the comment the poster made about "preaching the eula crap". I think what Hymn To Life is saying is, "too bad, you get to follow the rules just like everyone else, even when you ask not to." He did not give an opinion on the subject, and it is pretty asinine in my opinion for a poster to to come into the forum and explicitly ask not to be told the rules. I still think his comment was OK in this instance, though maybe some words would have helped a bit, much like in the LaRoza example where he was trying to explain that he was not closing the thread for personal reasons.

Exactly. It was a responds to "preaching the eula crap", the user that made comment agreed to follow the rules of ubuntuforums.org when making an account. The user knew that such comment (or he should) was a breach which Hymn To Life replied it's not okay.

LaRoza
September 1st, 2008, 08:03 PM
In the scenario where the mod participating in the thread is the only mod around at the time and needs to moderate the thread I think the best course of action would be for that mod to closed the thread with one single comment, "Closed for staff review & feedback.", nothing more.

The thread is then closed and handled at a later stage when a different mod or admin becomes available. This would be a hard and fast rule as well as easy to implement.

We do that mostly. Although a few examples were mentioned here (all in the OPP, in which I do not post anymore for a while) of me are the exception.

I have posted in threads that have started to go sour in a bad and then closed them commenting that I closed it so another mod can review it.


"Make it so, Number One (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=make%20it%20so%2C%20Number%20One)" :)

We don't need hard coded rules for everything do we?


i'm sure that wasn't the intent, but that's the effect. making flippant remarks is a judgment call that some mods might feel they are justified in making now. but, self righteousness accomplishes nothing and if ruled out, most would comply easily without any disruption in performing their duties. in fact, a "sorry about that" might accomplish far more.
What would you know? Thread closed.

mips
September 1st, 2008, 08:44 PM
We don't need hard coded rules for everything do we?

Nope, but in this scenario it would seem to be a good practise.

p_quarles
September 1st, 2008, 09:00 PM
Well, if it means anything, I have taken the sentiments expressed in this thread to heart. I closed a thread yesterday, and rewrote the closed-note twice to avoid sounding snotty.

I think it's a good practice, and I for one welcome this kind of feedback. The problem with hardcoded rules (both for forum members as well as for staff) is that the people still try to come up with creative "interpretations" that bypass the spirit of the rules. In other words, I'm not opposed to the kind of rule being suggested here, but the results of doing so probably will not satisfy those who feel there has been too much "last shot moderation." Just my take. :)

Oldsoldier2003
September 1st, 2008, 11:43 PM
Well, if it means anything, I have taken the sentiments expressed in this thread to heart. I closed a thread yesterday, and rewrote the closed-note twice to avoid sounding snotty.

I think it's a good practice, and I for one welcome this kind of feedback. The problem with hardcoded rules (both for forum members as well as for staff) is that the people still try to come up with creative "interpretations" that bypass the spirit of the rules. In other words, I'm not opposed to the kind of rule being suggested here, but the results of doing so probably will not satisfy those who feel there has been too much "last shot moderation." Just my take. :)

+1

I think that the intent of the discussion here was to get mods and members to discuss the issue. Through this discussion a lot of good points were made and both "sides" ( I really hate to use that term, it makes it sound like a war) have had a chance to reflect on the subject.

Sometimes a little discussion of these topics is a good thing.

LaRoza
September 1st, 2008, 11:48 PM
p_quarles gave his thoughts from this, I will give mine...

When I close threads (which I don't like doing), I typically either don't leave a message (so they don't know it was me and to avoid bumping it), or leave a short message, often not directly quoting the CoC (which I do for infractions often, or to clarify closings) but stating what was offensive or against the Code of Conduct. I have gotten zero complaints if I don't post in it (surprised?) and I have gotten a few (see earlier in thread) when I was too vague.

My entire methodology is based on laziness. I don't like closing and I don't like spending time doing it so I often am too terse or vague in my closing post.

I'll have to pay more attention (or not post at all all the time :evil:)

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 12:48 AM
it doesn't need to be a rule. it can be a very strongly urged guideline. i don't care as long as that practice goes away.



What would you know? Thread closed.

haha, you missed, fireball!1


Thread Closed

LaRoza
September 2nd, 2008, 12:53 AM
it doesn't need to be a rule. it can be a very strongly urged guideline. i don't care as long as that practice goes away.

Well, it will now that it has been addressed.



Thread Closed

Doesn't work for you either does it?

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 01:26 AM
Doesn't work for you either does it?

must have been that smartypants little remark i made.

KiwiNZ
September 2nd, 2008, 02:15 AM
Last Shot...

All of a sudden
A dirty great puddin
Came flying through the air
I called out ... duck
But did she duck......It caught her fair and square

LaRoza
September 2nd, 2008, 03:11 AM
chucky chuckaluck, you thread worked...

I had to think about how I closed this, and deleted (before posting) my first closing statement because of this thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5709619#post5709619

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 03:24 AM
chucky chuckaluck, you thread worked...

I had to think about how I closed this, and deleted (before posting) my first closing statement because of this thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5709619#post5709619

you're learning, grasshopper. one day you shall snatch the pebble from my hand.

LaRoza
September 2nd, 2008, 03:25 AM
you're learning, grasshopper. one day you shall snatch the pebble from my hand.

Or hit the bottom of your hand like a sane person ;)

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 03:33 AM
Or hit the bottom of your hand like a sane person ;)

hm... if i moved my hand quickly enough, and you were swinging from the elbow, you might hit yourself in the face. on the other hand, if you were using your whole arm, you could inadvertently end up patting yourself on the back. anyway, if you're well behaved, i might just give you the pebble. have some popcorn.

:popcorn:

LaRoza
September 2nd, 2008, 03:34 AM
hm... if i moved my hand quickly enough, and you were swinging from the elbow, you might hit yourself in the face. on the other hand, if you were using your whole arm, you could inadvertently end up patting yourself on the back. anyway, if you're well behaved, i might just give you the pebble. have some popcorn.

:popcorn:

No butter or salt please.

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 03:38 AM
No butter or salt please.

organic blue, air-popped.

LaRoza
September 2nd, 2008, 03:59 AM
organic blue, air-popped.

Perfect :-)

We have one thing in common (if that is your preference also)

kevdog
September 2nd, 2008, 04:45 AM
I've been a way for a couple of weeks. When did chucky get a new face?

schauerlich
September 2nd, 2008, 05:39 AM
I've been a way for a couple of weeks. When did chucky get a new face?

A day or two ago.

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 05:41 AM
I've been a way for a couple of weeks. When did chucky get a new face?

i had a smile makeover. thanks for noticing.

LaRoza
September 2nd, 2008, 06:22 PM
chucky chuckaluck, since we are sort of on the topic (well, before it went off topic), what are your thoughts on posting after moderation?

Say a mod moderates a thread (in any way, but in particular, posting in it in an official capacity), then laters posts in the thread for the topic.

chucky chuckaluck
September 2nd, 2008, 07:22 PM
chucky chuckaluck, since we are sort of on the topic (well, before it went off topic), what are your thoughts on posting after moderation?

Say a mod moderates a thread (in any way, but in particular, posting in it in an official capacity), then laters posts in the thread for the topic.

as i mentioned earlier, i think it would suck to be a moderator and not be able to post like a normal poster. i think the two roles can be kept distinct in one's mind (if someone can't do that, then moderating is not for them). as long as the thread is open, conversation can continue. when people disagree with each other, both have a chance for learning something they hadn't thought of before. i'm all for that.

mips
September 3rd, 2008, 02:11 AM
Say a mod moderates a thread (in any way, but in particular, posting in it in an official capacity), then laters posts in the thread for the topic.

I don't think that is on. Participate in the thread but please do not moderate & try and participate. I mean if you start off moderating the thread then later participating people might feel anxious about replying to a mods post. It's not easy, that is why I generally don't believe staff should participate & moderate at the same time. We are all human but in order to come across as impartial you have to toe the line as staff and not a normal participant.

Somehow I don't feel I explained myself well enough but I will sleep on it. :)

LaRoza
September 3rd, 2008, 02:14 AM
I don't think that is on. Participate in the thread but please do not moderate & try and participate. I mean if you start off moderating the thread then later participating people might feel anxious about replying to a mods post. It's not easy, that is why I generally don't believe staff should participate & moderate at the same time. We are all human but in order to come across as impartial you have to toe the line as staff and not a normal participant.

Somehow I don't feel I explained myself well enough but I will sleep on it. :)

I understand. Although I did do that, my act of moderation was very minor (just a reminder to keep it friendly, not directed at any one in particular)

mips
September 3rd, 2008, 02:32 AM
I understand. Although I did do that, my act of moderation was very minor (just a reminder to keep it friendly, not directed at any one in particular)

As the Ozzies would say 'no worries mate' :)

LaRoza
September 3rd, 2008, 02:33 AM
As the Ozzies would say 'no worries mate' :)

Ozzie as in metal singer, or the Australians?

Joeb454
September 3rd, 2008, 02:36 AM
Ozzie as in metal singer, or the Australians?

I think it's quite possibly both

LaRoza
September 3rd, 2008, 02:37 AM
I think it's quite possibly both

Every hear him speak? No way he said that (unless it was censored)

mips
September 3rd, 2008, 02:37 AM
Ozzie as in metal singer, or the Australians?

As in the Australians from the land down under ;)

mips
September 3rd, 2008, 02:39 AM
I think it's quite possibly both

Ozzie Osbourne is really hard to understand when he speaks. I think subtitles are justified :)

Edit: It's 03:40 here and I'm off to bed...

Joeb454
September 3rd, 2008, 02:44 AM
Every hear him speak? No way he said that (unless it was censored)

I saw it on a plane

</scrubs quote>

LaRoza
September 3rd, 2008, 02:46 AM
Ozzie Osbourne is really hard to understand when he speaks. I think subtitles are justified :)

Edit: It's 03:40 here and I'm off to bed...

Good night/morning.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 04:12 PM
i've removed the 'solved' label from this thread as the recent, willful behavior of one admin has shown me that he does indeed not get it. here is a quote from matthew in addressing and issue in the resolution center:


I have been reading this thread with interest. username, it is not your points that are generally offensive, but the manner in which you choose to express them. Your current method is directly confrontational and will almost always give rise to grumpy responses, not to a civil or healthy exchange of ideas.

i think this is a pretty clear, to the point assessment of the problem when applying it to the topic of this thread. unless there is an intended double standard where the regular posters have to behave and the staff does not, i still see no reason for rude behavior from the staff. do you think you're being parental? is that it? if you're going to wrap my knuckles with a ruler, at least have the decency to dress up like a nun (penguin avs don't count).

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 05:17 PM
i've removed the 'solved' label from this thread as the recent, willful behavior of one admin has shown me that he does indeed not get it. here is a quote from matthew in addressing and issue in the resolution center:

This is not the place to contest actions of admins in the Resolution Centre.



i think this is a pretty clear, to the point assessment of the problem when applying it to the topic of this thread. unless there is an intended double standard where the regular posters have to behave and the staff does not, i still see no reason for rude behavior from the staff. do you think you're being parental? is that it? if you're going to wrap my knuckles with a ruler, at least have the decency to dress up like a nun (penguin avs don't count).

I don't see the problem in that quote anyway, and it seems you basically telling admins how to run their site.

I will also point out this forum is a tech support forum for Ubuntu. All the complaints here don't deal with that and are an extreme fringe of the forum. There are some people who mostly or only post in those sections and that is fine, but these people are the source of almost all the criticism of the staff and many of them feel entitled to more than the CoC grants. "Freedom of Speech" is not a right on privately owned forums, and if this forum is too restrictive in your opinion of certain discussions that have nothing to do with Ubuntu or tech support, I suggest another forum may be more suitable.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 05:22 PM
This is not the place to contest actions of admins in the Resolution Centre.

i wasn't. i was borrowing a quote from matthew which he made in the resolution center. the action i was addressing happened in this forum.



I don't see the problem in that quote anyway, and it seems you basically telling admins how to run their site.

there isn't a problem in that quote. i was using it because i thought matthew more eloquently addressed a problem that i think also applies to the problem discussed in this thread. was i really that unclear?

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 05:33 PM
TI will also point out this forum is a tech support forum for Ubuntu. All the complaints here don't deal with that and are an extreme fringe of the forum. There are some people who mostly or only post in those sections and that is fine, but these people are the source of almost all the criticism of the staff and many of them feel entitled to more than the CoC grants. "Freedom of Speech" is not a right on privately owned forums, and if this forum is too restrictive in your opinion of certain discussions that have nothing to do with Ubuntu or tech support, I suggest another forum may be more suitable.

the problem being addressed is unfair play by some of the moderators in the off-topic forum. yes, this is primarily a support forum, but it also has an off topic forum. i believe the off topic forum should be treated with fairness and i also believe that it's not. the rude behavior from moderators that i have addressed in this thread, and the premature closing of topics are problems that need to be addressed if this forum is going to continue to make the claim of 'towards humanity'. i, for one, don't expect freedom of speech at these forums. i do expect respectful and an earnest attempt at fair treatment from the staff.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 05:41 PM
there isn't a problem in that quote. i was using it because i thought matthew more eloquently addressed a problem that i think also applies to the problem discussed in this thread. was i really that unclear?

Ah, yes, I misinterpretted your post. It may be worded to vaguely about which admin you are talking about or which actions.

tuxxy
September 9th, 2008, 05:44 PM
"Freedom of Speech" is not a right on privately owned forums, and if this forum is too restrictive in your opinion of certain discussions that have nothing to do with Ubuntu or tech support, I suggest another forum may be more suitable.

It baffles me how staffs sexual preference threads are linked to, or have any place on a Ubuntu tech support forum :confused:

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 05:45 PM
It baffles me how staffs sexual preference threads are linked to, or have any place on a Ubuntu tech support forum :confused:

I don't know of any current active threads on sexual preferences, and certainly not of the staff.

tuxxy
September 9th, 2008, 05:47 PM
I don't know of any current active threads on sexual preferences, and certainly not of the staff.

Use the search function

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Use the search function

No. The forum's search feature isn't all that great, and the forum in which we had such discussions on sexuality were in the OPP and exempt from searches.

If you don't want to give a link or just a bit more information, I can't investigate this matter.

<edit>
Searched for "staff sexual preferences" and got this thread. You made it about this topic by mentioning it, so such a thread doesn't exist.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 05:51 PM
Ah, yes, I misinterpretted your post. It may be worded to vaguely about which admin you are talking about or which actions.

i don't want to repeat the mistake of pointing the finger at anyone again. i've taken up that issue in the resolution center. i'm trying to restrict my posting in this thread to what i think is the problem and why it is a problem. i'm actually looking for a way to promote more tolerance and patience on 'both sides of the aisle'.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 05:57 PM
i don't want to repeat the mistake of pointing the finger at anyone again. i've taken up that issue in the resolution center. i'm trying to restrict my posting in this thread to what i think is the problem and why it is a problem. i'm actually looking for a way to promote more tolerance and patience on 'both sides of the aisle'.

For "last shot moderation" I suggest you restrict yourself to the forum besides FF&H. This particular subforum is directed at the staff (usually admins, but mods often have the knowledge of the issues to answer them) and is asking for opinions of staff, whether mods or admins so finding instances of "last shot moderation" on threads about the staff, by the admins would be extremely easy. The question is is that inappropriate and given the nature of this forum and such threads, I don't think it is.

tuxxy
September 9th, 2008, 06:02 PM
Searched for "staff sexual preferences"

lol your hilarious, nvm

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 06:26 PM
lol your hilarious, nvm

There was a joke? Sorry, I am not getting it. I do remember a thread about sexual preferences, but it was in the OPP (Backyard, at the time) and hasn't been active in a long time.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 06:45 PM
For "last shot moderation" I suggest you restrict yourself to the forum besides FF&H. This particular subforum is directed at the staff (usually admins, but mods often have the knowledge of the issues to answer them) and is asking for opinions of staff, whether mods or admins so finding instances of "last shot moderation" on threads about the staff, by the admins would be extremely easy. The question is is that inappropriate and given the nature of this forum and such threads, I don't think it is.

sorry, i didn't understand this post at all. mind translating?

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 06:51 PM
sorry, i didn't understand this post at all. mind translating?

Not at all.

It seems that you are extending your feedback on staff not giving opinions that could be seen as inviting opposition on the topic in a closing post or in an act of moderation, ie,"last shot moderation". This feedback was accepted as being in the forum's best interest and lead to moderators (me and others who posted here) in being more careful in our wordings when closing threads to avoid issues.

However, you seem to be extending this expectation to admins in the Forum Feedback and Help, which I think is inappropriate to do. When a topic that is the domain of the FC is made, the FC has every right to close that thread with their opinion. If an admin closes a thread on Vim because they like emacs, that could be seen as out of line if not for the fact they are in charge of the forum (I don't know any admins that like emacs or who would do such things, even if though I think they have some right to do so). On threads in the Resolution Centre and certain threads in the Forum Feedback and Help, I don't think it is appropriate to criticise the FC for dealing with issues that are in their domain (ie, can't be dealt with by mods) because of their responsibilities on the forum.

To be blunt (like you), this thread isn't appropriate at all: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=912678

The admin in question had every right to do that, and you had no (or little) right to question it because of the topic and status of the admin.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Not at all.

It seems that you are extending your feedback on staff not giving opinions that could be seen as inviting opposition on the topic in a closing post or in an act of moderation, ie,"last shot moderation". This feedback was accepted as being in the forum's best interest and lead to moderators (me and others who posted here) in being more careful in our wordings when closing threads to avoid issues.

However, you seem to be extending this expectation to admins in the Forum Feedback and Help, which I think is inappropriate to do. When a topic that is the domain of the FC is made, the FC has every right to close that thread with their opinion. If an admin closes a thread on Vim because they like emacs, that could be seen as out of line if not for the fact they are in charge of the forum (I don't know any admins that like emacs or who would do such things, even if though I think they have some right to do so). On threads in the Resolution Centre and certain threads in the Forum Feedback and Help, I don't think it is appropriate to criticise the FC for dealing with issues that are in their domain (ie, can't be dealt with by mods) because of their responsibilities on the forum.

To be blunt (like you), this thread isn't appropriate at all: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=912678

The admin in question had every right to do that, and you had no (or little) right to question it because of the topic and status of the admin.

that thread i posted in the resolution center was in response to the closing of this thread - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=912220
i was told in this thread, a number of times, that if i had a problem with the way a mod/admin closed a thread that i should take it up in the resolution center. that's what i did. how is that inappropriate?

as to your suggestion that the 'forum feedback & help' sub forum is a sanctuary for bad behavior, i suggest that's ridiculous. bad behavior, by anyone, should not be tolerated in any public area of these forums (agreement on what consitutes bad behavior, aside). i can find no indication in the stickies that suggests the special nature of the ff&h that you seem to be suggesting.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 07:21 PM
that thread i posted in the resolution center was in response to the closing of this thread - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=912220
i was told in this thread, a number of times, that if i had a problem with the way a mod/admin closed a thread that i should take it up in the resolution center. that's what i did. how is that inappropriate?

Because you are doing it by your rules, not the forums.



as to your suggestion that the 'forum feedback & help' sub forum is a sanctuary for bad behavior, i suggest that's ridiculous. bad behavior, by anyone, should not be tolerated in any public area of these forums (agreement on what consitutes bad behavior, aside). i can find no indication in the stickies that suggests the special nature of the ff&h that you seem to be suggesting.

That is what I am trying to go against. You are projecting your interpretation of the rules onto the staff, and holding them to that. "bad behavior" in this case means "contrary to my personal recommendation".

There is no special nature of the FF&H, but most of the things here (all of the things in the Resolution Centre) are the domain of the admins and FC (you know, the ones who wrote the rules). The admin in the case of that thread did so with the rights of an admin (it was a thread about the staff, not about specific incidents and the admin felt it just attracted unjust criticism of the staff and wasn't appropriate), and I don't think it was in your rights to tell the admin how to be an admin, especially when that is a thread that is a topic an admin should deal with (they choose the staff).

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 07:34 PM
That is what I am trying to go against. You are projecting your interpretation of the rules onto the staff, and holding them to that. "bad behavior" in this case means "contrary to my personal recommendation".


the rules say that everyone is to be treated with respect. i think that 'last shot moderation/admining' is a violation of that rule. show me the appropriate place to complain about it.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 07:44 PM
the rules say that everyone is to be treated with respect. i think that 'last shot moderation/admining' is a violation of that rule. show me the appropriate place to complain about it.

I didn't say it wasn't the appropriate place to complain, just an inappropriate complaint.

If you want to make it strictly against the rules for staff to express opinions when closing a thread, such a proposal could be made at the FC meeting, however, I think that won't work (the rule).

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 07:55 PM
I didn't say it wasn't the appropriate place to complain, just an inappropriate complaint.

inappriate complaint? why?



If you want to make it strictly against the rules for staff to express opinions when closing a thread, such a proposal could be made at the FC meeting, however, I think that won't work (the rule).

won't work, or won't happen?

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 08:01 PM
inappriate complaint? why?

Because it basically said "You are an admin and a volunteer of this site, but I am going to tell you what to do anyway because I feel I am morally superior".



won't work, or won't happen?
I don't think the rule would pass.

This entire issue is centred around the OPP and a few Cafe threads probably. The OPP (look in resolution centre) is the subject of almost all complaints, and there are some people who post primarily or solely in these forums. Do you see it the way I see it? A bunch of people using a fringe of the forum making demands. The thread that post was about was dealing with the "closed for review" practice, specifically, its use in the OPP. The OPP should be a minor forum, and need very little attention, yet is takes up an inordinate amount of time on the staff. Many staff think it should be closed and eliminated because of this. I used to think otherwise, but now I am agreeing with them. It just breeds a bunch of entitlement people, instead of anything useful.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 08:36 PM
I agree with LaRoza , 99% of the complaints generate from the off topic areas. Why?

Folks seem to think that "off topic" means anything goes. And that they are free to say what they like , in a manner that they can choose when they like .We have stated on so many times tha this is not the case.

As I have stated in the past , threads and posts get moderated because of the actions of the poster. If the rules are followed then moderation does not occur.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Because it basically said "You are an admin and a volunteer of this site, but I am going to tell you what to do anyway because I feel I am morally superior".

no, that's not what i'm doing. i'm just pointing out a practice that i think is bad for the forums and actually makes the administration of these forums unnecessarily more difficult. i can only say how it affects me. i brought it up in a public forum, rather than the resolution center, so that others might weigh in on the issue. it's not an attack on anyone's authority to bring up this issue.



I don't think the rule would pass.

i agree.


This entire issue is centred around the OPP and a few Cafe threads probably. The OPP (look in resolution centre) is the subject of almost all complaints, and there are some people who post primarily or solely in these forums. Do you see it the way I see it? A bunch of people using a fringe of the forum making demands. The thread that post was about was dealing with the "closed for review" practice, specifically, its use in the OPP. The OPP should be a minor forum, and need very little attention, yet is takes up an inordinate amount of time on the staff. Many staff think it should be closed and eliminated because of this. I used to think otherwise, but now I am agreeing with them. It just breeds a bunch of entitlement people, instead of anything useful.

well, until that forum is gone, the people posting in it are just as entitled to respect as those who post elsewhere.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 08:49 PM
well, until that forum is gone, the people posting in it are just as entitled to respect as those who post elsewhere.
As long as the people posting there have the same respect, which they often times don't.

Closing a thread in there is a crime almost, and some people feel any threads criticising a certain topic (usually Christians, it seems) should be left open lest the mod be accused of having an agenda (this happened to a mod who usually disagreed with some of my actions, especially concerning religion when he closed a thread.) How many such threads are needed? There are many open threads like that, yet people only see the closed ones.

So, the easy way is to ignore the OPP and let it collect trash. I don't think that is acceptable and the Code of Conduct applies everywhere to the same extent in all forums.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 08:51 PM
I agree with LaRoza , 99% of the complaints generate from the off topic areas. Why?

Folks seem to think that "off topic" means anything goes. And that they are free to say what they like , in a manner that they can choose when they like .We have stated on so many times tha this is not the case.

As I have stated in the past , threads and posts get moderated because of the actions of the poster. If the rules are followed then moderation does not occur.

+1

(Obviously, +1'ing is redundant, as that post is agreeing with me but this is something I feel strongly about now)

fiddledd
September 9th, 2008, 08:53 PM
I agree with LaRoza , 99% of the complaints generate from the off topic areas. Why?

Folks seem to think that "off topic" means anything goes. And that they are free to say what they like , in a manner that they can choose when they like .We have stated on so many times tha this is not the case...


Just to respond to your last point. Although some may think that off topic means anything goes, I don't believe that's true of everyone that frequents OMGPP.

I myself have not posted in certain threads because I feel my opinion may cause offence. Or I will post, but omit what I feel may cause offence.

For example I am not a believer in any Deity, yet I will avoid most threads discussing Religion.

I am also very much against any cruelty to animals. Yet I try to avoid certain threads because I know my passion could cause offence.

I am also sure that I am not alone, and that most other posters in OMGPP also try to avoid causing offence.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 09:01 PM
As long as the people posting there have the same respect, which they often times don't.

i agree, but the zoo keepers shouldn't start taking bites out of the antelopes just because one of the lions got out of hand.


Closing a thread in there is a crime almost, and some people feel any threads criticising a certain topic (usually Christians, it seems) should be left open lest the mod be accused of having an agenda (this happened to a mod who usually disagreed with some of my actions, especially concerning religion when he closed a thread.) How many such threads are needed? There are many open threads like that, yet people only see the closed ones.

So, the easy way is to ignore the OPP and let it collect trash. I don't think that is acceptable and the Code of Conduct applies everywhere to the same extent in all forums.

closing a thread that is a problem, or just starting to be a problem, in my view, is not unreasonable. closing a thread just because it could potentially be a problem is what i don't like.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 09:05 PM
i agree, but the zoo keepers shouldn't start taking bites out of the antelopes just because one of the lions got out of hand.


Good thing we aren't zoo keepers and there are no lions or antelopes here.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 09:06 PM
eerr food for thought

seriously you make a valid point here


i agree, but the zoo keepers shouldn't start taking bites out of the antelopes just because one of the lions got out of hand.



closing a thread that is a problem, or just starting to be a problem, in my view, is not unreasonable. closing a thread just because it could potentially be a problem is what i don't like.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 09:08 PM
eerr food for thought

seriously you make a valid point here

Why don't we just not allow discussions that are fertile for getting out of hand?

We don't allow discussions on illegal activity and despite the best work of the world's lawmakers we rarely have grey areas we have to deal with. We have way too much grey area in the OPP, so why not just not allow certain discussions as they clearly can't be controlled.

chucky chuckaluck
September 9th, 2008, 09:24 PM
We have way too much grey area in the OPP, so why not just not allow certain discussions as they clearly can't be controlled.

that's even worse than closing a thread that hasn't been a problem yet. you might not have as much to do if you only closed threads that are a problem. i don't mean that flippantly. i literally think your jobs would be easier if you responded only to issues rather than trying to prevent any possible issue from developing.


edit: off to work. later, dudes.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 09:27 PM
that's even worse than closing a thread that hasn't been a problem yet. you might not have as much to do if you only closed threads that are a problem. i don't mean that flippantly. i literally think your jobs would be easier if you responded only to issues rather than trying to prevent any possible issue from developing.


I think the Cafe is non technical enough and the OPP should be eliminated. This means such discussions would not be allowed on the forum, which is logical for a tech forum.

Almost all closings are the result of reports, by the way.



edit: off to work. later, dudes.
Have fun.

mips
September 9th, 2008, 09:36 PM
Edit: Never mind, I dont want to open another can of worms.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Just as well I hate worms on my PC :)



Edit: Never mind, I dont want to open another can of worms.

KiwiNZ
September 9th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Its a quantum leap from saying I think he has some valid points re premptive closing to allowing open season.

Case by case , this is how it should be .

You are right illegal activity is a valid reason for premptive closure



Why don't we just not allow discussions that are fertile for getting out of hand?

We don't allow discussions on illegal activity and despite the best work of the world's lawmakers we rarely have grey areas we have to deal with. We have way too much grey area in the OPP, so why not just not allow certain discussions as they clearly can't be controlled.

LaRoza
September 9th, 2008, 09:48 PM
Its a quantum leap from saying I think he has some valid points re premptive closing to allowing open season.


I meant it should be re-evaluated in terms of what is allowed (see discussion...)

fballem
September 9th, 2008, 10:01 PM
I have waded through the now 17 pages of discussion. I'm relatively new to ubuntu and have found the forums useful, and some of the side discussions really interesting (including the various flamewars that erupt).

Please forgive an outsider's ignorance, but it seems that there may be a consensus around the following guidelines:


Moderators do not give up their rights to participate in a discussion if they choose to.
If they choose to participate in a discussion, then they should do so as a 'normal participant' and should only close the discussion if there is some urgency. An example of 'urgency' would be illegal activity - I'm sure there are others.
If there is urgency, then they should close the discussion with a note 'closed pending review' - no other comment should be provided. They are then obligated to have a non-involved moderator review the discussion and determine if it should be closed. That non-involved moderator can then close the discussion with appropriate commentary if they agree.
If there is no urgency, then they can ask a non-involved moderator to review the discussion.
A discussion should only be closed if there is a violation of the Code of Conduct. Any closing should include the Code of Conduct section. Some editorial comment may be necessary to explain the application of the Code of Conduct to the discussion. Any other personal opinion should not be provided.
Any one who disagrees with the closing may use a Private Message to the moderator, or raise the issue in the Resolution Center as appropriate.


From what I read, there seems to be a broad consensus from the moderators, administrators, and the users that this is a workable set of guidelines. I may have read wrong, however, but that's what I saw in the posts.

Regards,

Oldsoldier2003
September 9th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Its a quantum leap from saying I think he has some valid points re premptive closing to allowing open season.

Case by case , this is how it should be .

You are right illegal activity is a valid reason for premptive closure
quoting Kiwi, but adressing anyone that is actually reading and trying to understand this thread and the issue:

What folks don't seem to realize is that many closures are based on past experiences and moderator judgment / discretion. It's like the police officer that stops you for doing 5 miles over the speed limit. The cop can write you a ticket, issue you a verbal warning, issue you a written warning, or just not do anything because in his discretion it wasn't an issue.

Moderating is not a "black and white job", it requires you deal with many, many complex shades of gray. Among other things, the FC is responsible for making sure we (the mods) maintain our ability to distinguish between the shades.


The staff here was chosen for various reasons, but mostly because they are helpful and have shown a trend of courteous behavior and commitment to helping the community. Are we fallible, yes. But we do our best to uphold the trust and confidence that was placed on us by the FC.

While the moderators may not always agree, we do try to reach a consensus when possible. The admins and FC will always have oversight and be able to correct any overzealous moderation through the resolution center or by back channels. I can't believe that the users of this forum would be so naive as to think that the FC doesn't have a way to address moderators that have clearly jumped across the line with both feet :)

So here is my challenge to the folks that yearn for change: step back a moment and look at the big picture. This is an internet forum run by a group of volunteers funded by a company that underwrites a free operating system. Be completely amazed and awestruck that they even allow off topic banter and respectful of others when you engage in the off topic banter. If you see a moderator doing something you don't feel is appropriate, click the report button or file a thread in the RC, but be respectful and present your case logically without emotion, hatred or bias. You might be surprised, the FC is very reasonable when the discussion is conducted in a courteous non confrontational manner.

just my 2 cents as a staff member- take what you will from it.

ubuntu-freak
September 9th, 2008, 11:00 PM
this is an internet forum


+1

fballem
September 9th, 2008, 11:16 PM
quoting Kiwi, but adressing anyone that is actually reading and trying to understand this thread and the issue:

What folks don't seem to realize is that many closures are based on past experiences and moderator judgment / discretion. It's like the police officer that stops you for doing 5 miles over the speed limit. The cop can write you a ticket, issue you a verbal warning, issue you a written warning, or just not do anything because in his discretion it wasn't an issue.

Moderating is not a "black and white job", it requires you deal with many, many complex shades of gray. Among other things, the FC is responsible for making sure we (the mods) maintain our ability to distinguish between the shades.


The staff here was chosen for various reasons, but mostly because they are helpful and have shown a trend of courteous behavior and commitment to helping the community. Are we fallible, yes. But we do our best to uphold the trust and confidence that was placed on us by the FC.

While the moderators may not always agree, we do try to reach a consensus when possible. The admins and FC will always have oversight and be able to correct any overzealous moderation through the resolution center or by back channels. I can't believe that the users of this forum would be so naive as to think that the FC doesn't have a way to address moderators that have clearly jumped across the line with both feet :)

So here is my challenge to the folks that yearn for change: step back a moment and look at the big picture. This is an internet forum run by a group of volunteers funded by a company that underwrites a free operating system. Be completely amazed and awestruck that they even allow off topic banter and respectful of others when you engage in the off topic banter. If you see a moderator doing something you don't feel is appropriate, click the report button or file a thread in the RC, but be respectful and present your case logically without emotion, hatred or bias. You might be surprised, the FC is very reasonable when the discussion is conducted in a courteous non confrontational manner.

just my 2 cents as a staff member- take what you will from it.


Generally, I agree. My (limited) experience on the forums has been generally agreeable - in that opinions are presented, listened to, and responded to. There is the occasional flamewar that erupts. Depending on the forum (or the topic) these are either allowed, ignored, or 'strongly discouraged' by the other users, with the occasional prod gently provided by an administrator type person.

I might have missed something, but I think the original post was not specifically complaining about closing a discussion, but rather suggesting that there may be a need for specific guidelines around how the moderator closes the forum, in particular if the moderator has been part of the discussion or is known to have strong feelings about the subject.

"Not only must Caesar's wife be beyond reproach, she must be seen to be beyond reproach." (not sure of the source, but I think I've got the quote pretty close). For those whose first language is not English, it means that when someone acts, they must act for the right reasons and that it must be obvious that they are acting for the right reasons.

A moderator is expected to exercise their judgment, but if they have participated in the discussion (or are known to have strong opinions about the subject) then they should be encouraged to 'go the extra mile' and ensure that they are seen to be beyond reproach in the exercise of their judgment as moderator.

I don't think that's an unreasonable ask.

Regards,

cyberdork33
September 10th, 2008, 02:50 AM
Let's just let the OMG*Ponies out of the stable already. It is quite obvious that this area is full of the complainers, content that has nothing to do with Ubuntu (or any OS for that matter), and maybe even the source of the server load.

schauerlich
September 10th, 2008, 03:22 AM
Let's just let the OMG*Ponies out of the stable already. It is quite obvious that this area is full of the complainers, content that has nothing to do with Ubuntu (or any OS for that matter), and maybe even the source of the server load.

Well, that's easy to say when you don't post there that often.

If OMGPP was eliminated, the same discussions would just be shifted to the Cafe, where even more threads would be closed, there would be more complaining about over-moderation (oxymoron?) and there would be more unhappy people.

LaRoza
September 10th, 2008, 03:25 AM
If OMGPP was eliminated, the same discussions would just be shifted to the Cafe, where even more threads would be closed, there would be more complaining about over-moderation (oxymoron?) and there would be more unhappy people.

I don't think it would. I think the OPP regulars would leave the forum.

Of course, this is all talk remember people (and not the subject of the thread)

cyberdork33
September 10th, 2008, 03:30 AM
Well, that's easy to say when you don't post there that often.

If OMGPP was eliminated, the same discussions would just be shifted to the Cafe, where even more threads would be closed, there would be more complaining about over-moderation (oxymoron?) and there would be more unhappy people.

I actually almost never post there because..... I am here for the support forums. Shocker, I know.

The cafe should be linux-related topics.

I understand that this is off-topic, and I might be a little brash (Not all people in *ponies are compaining), but this is all interrelated in my opinion.

My point was that if you really want to prevent the sorts of things you are talking about, just don't allow any of it period. I'm done with the OT talk.

cardinals_fan
September 10th, 2008, 05:51 AM
I have waded through the now 17 pages of discussion. I'm relatively new to ubuntu and have found the forums useful, and some of the side discussions really interesting (including the various flamewars that erupt).

Please forgive an outsider's ignorance, but it seems that there may be a consensus around the following guidelines:


Moderators do not give up their rights to participate in a discussion if they choose to.
If they choose to participate in a discussion, then they should do so as a 'normal participant' and should only close the discussion if there is some urgency. An example of 'urgency' would be illegal activity - I'm sure there are others.
If there is urgency, then they should close the discussion with a note 'closed pending review' - no other comment should be provided. They are then obligated to have a non-involved moderator review the discussion and determine if it should be closed. That non-involved moderator can then close the discussion with appropriate commentary if they agree.
If there is no urgency, then they can ask a non-involved moderator to review the discussion.
A discussion should only be closed if there is a violation of the Code of Conduct. Any closing should include the Code of Conduct section. Some editorial comment may be necessary to explain the application of the Code of Conduct to the discussion. Any other personal opinion should not be provided.
Any one who disagrees with the closing may use a Private Message to the moderator, or raise the issue in the Resolution Center as appropriate.


From what I read, there seems to be a broad consensus from the moderators, administrators, and the users that this is a workable set of guidelines. I may have read wrong, however, but that's what I saw in the posts.

Regards,
That all sounds good to me :)

Canis familiaris
September 10th, 2008, 01:50 PM
well, that's easy to say when you don't post there that often.

If omgpp was eliminated, the same discussions would just be shifted to the cafe, where even more threads would be closed, there would be more complaining about over-moderation (oxymoron?) and there would be more unhappy people.

+1

fiddledd
September 10th, 2008, 02:54 PM
I actually almost never post there because..... I am here for the support forums. Shocker, I know.

The cafe should be linux-related topics.

I understand that this is off-topic, and I might be a little brash (Not all people in *ponies are compaining), but this is all interrelated in my opinion.

My point was that if you really want to prevent the sorts of things you are talking about, just don't allow any of it period. I'm done with the OT talk.

If you do the following:

Close OMGPP

Restrict the Cafe to Linux only topics

And maybe close all non-Linux specific sub forums

IMHO, it wouldn't be Ubuntu Forums. It would just be another Linux Distro forum. There are hundreds of those already.

People volunteer their help in the support forums, I don't think a break from that now and again does any harm.

Even people at work get a Lunch Break.

ubuntu-freak
September 10th, 2008, 04:14 PM
I have an idea:

1. Revert the naming of OMGPP to "The Backyard", to illustrate that it may contain controversial subject matter.

2. Give serial complainers warnings, infractions, permanent bans etc.

LaRoza
September 10th, 2008, 04:22 PM
2. Give serial complainers warnings, infractions, permanent bans etc.
Then we are back to where we started ;) The majority of complainers from the OPP and the staff's time being taken up for an unimportant part of the forum.

ubuntu-freak
September 10th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Then we are back to where we started ;) The majority of complainers from the OPP and the staff's time being taken up for an unimportant part of the forum.


I don't know what I think, really. I'm complaining about people who complain...

fiddledd
September 10th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Then we are back to where we started ;) The majority of complainers from the OPP and the staff's time being taken up for an unimportant part of the forum.

I believe every part of the forum is important, if it helps to make people feel part of the Community.

Whoever created The Backyard obviously thought it was important. Many forums have an off topic forum that's only accessible by members, why should Ubuntu Forums be any different.

I'm interested in Wildlife and am a member of a Bird forum with > 70,000 members. This forum also has an off topic forum.

So what about Community Cafe Games, not exactly Linux support, should that close also? I have no interest in it, seems pointless to me, but others enjoy spending time there.

It seems this thread has been pulled off topic. It now seems that "last shot moderation" has nothing to do with the mods, it's all down to those nasty complaining people, who frequent OMGPP.

LaRoza
September 10th, 2008, 07:04 PM
I believe every part of the forum is important, if it helps to make people feel part of the Community.

Whoever created The Backyard obviously thought it was important. Many forums have an off topic forum that's only accessible by members, why should Ubuntu Forums be any different.

I'm interested in Wildlife and am a member of a Bird forum with > 70,000 members. This forum also has an off topic forum.

So what about Community Cafe Games, not exactly Linux support, should that close also? I have no interest in it, seems pointless to me, but others enjoy spending time there.


The Backyard was created for a place to dump thread that don't belong in the Cafe when the forum was smaller. The Cafe Games was created to kick out the game threads from the Cafe.

fiddledd
September 10th, 2008, 07:25 PM
The Backyard was created for a place to dump thread that don't belong in the Cafe when the forum was smaller. The Cafe Games was created to kick out the game threads from the Cafe.

Oh, I see, dump as in dumping trash.

Well then if all the staff hold your view I suggest you close it, and any other sub forum that's now irrelevant.

That is what your are saying isn't it? Those sub forums were necessary because the forum was small, but now it's bigger they are not needed. Or have I misunderstood you?

fiddledd
September 10th, 2008, 07:29 PM
Actually I must apologise to the OP, I've helped to drag the thread even more off topic. I won't post in this thread again.:)

chucky chuckaluck
September 10th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Oh, I see, dump as in dumping trash.

Well then if all the staff hold your view I suggest you close it, and any other sub forum that's now irrelevant.

That is what your are saying isn't it? Those sub forums were necessary because the forum was small, but now it's bigger they are not needed. Or have I misunderstood you?

i don't think it was a size issue as much as a desirability issue.

LaRoza
September 10th, 2008, 09:17 PM
Oh, I see, dump as in dumping trash.

In a way, but not quite. It was for threads they found borderline but didn't feel were against the rules.



That is what your are saying isn't it? Those sub forums were necessary because the forum was small, but now it's bigger they are not needed. Or have I misunderstood you?

Not quite. The sub forums were made when the forum was small, but IMO they are getting harder to manage because of the growth. There is no single opinion of the staff.

ugm6hr
September 12th, 2008, 12:34 AM
A discussion should only be closed if there is a violation of the Code of Conduct. Any closing should include the Code of Conduct section. Some editorial comment may be necessary to explain the application of the Code of Conduct to the discussion. Any other personal opinion should not be provided.


In general, the CoC violated most often in these scenarios is:

1. Be respectful of all users at all times. This means please use etiquette and politeness. Treat people with kindness and gentleness.

Whether stating this, or making a comment about the lack of respect displayed by users posting at the time of closing the thread (i.e a last shot moderation act) achieves the same result: the mod closing the thread is suggesting that at least one person posting in the thread is not being respectful.

kevdog
September 16th, 2008, 06:31 AM
Be respectful of all users at all times. This means please use etiquette and politeness. Treat people with kindness and gentleness.

I always thought of this statement in the CoC as a "cop-out". I do think this forum works well, and is well moderated, however I think for the forum to stand on this thin veil of principle is in reality very shallow and non-committal. The statement above states nothing -- reminds me of a political answer. Almost anything written in this forum (including this response), could be thought of as disrespectful and unpolite. Rather than hiding behind a very vague, thinly veiled CoC, I would rather a statement like this:

All users are guests of these forums. Any comment as deemed by the moderators of these forums felt to be controversial, disrespectful, and indignant will be flagged, the commenter will receive an infraction, and the offending comment will be removed. The administrative staff retains sole rights to ultimately judge discretions and to act accordingly.

That would seem to be a little bit more clear cut and would make it clear cut that moderator actions are final.

LaRoza
September 16th, 2008, 06:34 AM
I always thought of this statement in the CoC as a "cop-out". I do think this forum works well, and is well moderated, however I think for the forum to stand on this thin veil of principle is in reality very shallow and non-committal. The statement above states nothing -- reminds me of a political answer. Almost anything written in this forum (including this response), could be thought of as disrespectful and unpolite. Rather than hiding behind a very vague, thinly veiled CoC, I would rather a statement like this:

Well, it won't hold up in court, but we don't want to be a lawyerisc nit-picking bunch.



All users are guests of these forums. Any comment as deemed by the moderators of these forums felt to be controversial, disrespectful, and indignant will be flagged, the commenter will receive an infraction, and the offending comment will be removed. The administrative staff retains sole rights to ultimately judge discretions and to act accordingly.

The code also contains:


The web-master, administrators and moderators of this forum will preserve forum content when possible. However editing, locking and deleting content may be necessary and if so will be done at the discretion of the web-master, administrators and moderators when the forum code of conduct has been violated.

Which sort of covers it.



That would seem to be a little bit more clear cut and would make it clear cut that moderator actions are final.

That is the thing, no actions are really final. We could be more draconian, but that wouldn't be very human.

kevdog
September 16th, 2008, 06:45 AM
I'm not wanting a more draconian system (trust me on this one), however this is kind of what is in place already. With such a big user base, and a bunch of new users with various opinions on multiple topics (including those in the Backyard), its very difficult to govern the forum with easy-handed humanity. I think a lot of things slide by in these forums which speak to the leniency of the moderation. Complaints are always lodged about unfair moderation which although in extremely rare cases do occur, these incidences and the possibility of such gross indiscretions are overblown and exaggerated.

Although the current CoC represents a grander vision, I think this vision could be practically simplified practically. In other words -- just cut to the heart of the matter, and leave visionary statements and intentions out of the CoC.

Sorry not on a rant, just bored and I haven't done much typing lately, so I kind of miss it!

koenn
September 16th, 2008, 09:36 PM
I realize this thread is quite old (6-14 days is an eternity on these forums), but it's an interesting discussion - I'm kinda sorry I didn't find this thread sooner. I think Chucky makes an excellent point about the last shot moderation and related issues such as premature closing of threads that might possibly eventually evolve into something undesirable, and there are some reasonable suggestions in this thread about how to avoid such hickups.


While reading the thread I noticed this :


So here is my challenge to the folks that yearn for change: ... . This is an internet forum run by a group of volunteers funded by a company that underwrites a free operating system. Be completely amazed and awestruck that they even allow off topic banter ...

I'm not completely amazed and awstruck that some off topic talk is allowed. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to allow it.
Open Source thrives on communities. To develop communities, you need at least minimal social interaction - some of which will be not 'work-related'. As in "The Cafe is the water cooler of Ubuntu Forums', or "Because we are interested in being a community, the Cafe was created. ... it is a social area for fun." (Matthew, http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=244237 ).

LaRoza
September 16th, 2008, 09:51 PM
While reading the thread I noticed this :

I'm not completely amazed and awstruck that some off topic talk is allowed. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to allow it.
Open Source thrives on communities. To develop communities, you need at least minimal social interaction - some of which will be not 'work-related'. As in "The Cafe is the water cooler of Ubuntu Forums', or "Because we are interested in being a community, the Cafe was created. ... it is a social area for fun." (Matthew, http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=244237 ).

No, this is the official Ubuntu Forums owned and operated by Canonical. Find another corporate owned forum for technical support with anything like the OPP or even Cafe (and even Resolution Centre):



The "Dell Community" does not have one: http://www.dellcommunity.com/supportforums/
Microsoft lacks one: http://forums.microsoft.com/#1
osxhints has a cafe like forum, but explictly states: http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=45 (we should do that IMO) (I don't know who owns this forum. If it isn't owned by a corporation, then it is an even stronger indiction UF is different)
The "off topic" forum on Debian's forums should at least be about technology: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=17592

ubuntu-freak
September 16th, 2008, 10:50 PM
LaRoza, why do you get involved in religious and political debates if you're of the opinion that they shouldn't be allowed here?

LaRoza
September 16th, 2008, 10:51 PM
LaRoza, why do you get involved in religious and political debates if you're of the opinion that they shouldn't be allowed here?

I don't get involved with them...

I almost never post anything about politics and have expressed religious opinions, but do not debate religion.

ubuntu-freak
September 16th, 2008, 11:01 PM
I don't get involved with them...

I almost never post anything about politics and have expressed religious opinions, but do not debate religion.


An expressed opinion will cause a debate, but okay.

koenn
September 16th, 2008, 11:02 PM
No, this is the official Ubuntu Forums owned and operated by Canonical. Find another corporate owned forum for technical support with anything like the OPP or even Cafe (and even Resolution Centre):

One of us misses the point here, and i think it's you.

OldSoldier is clearly talking about Ubuntuforums when he says 'This is an internet forum run by volunteers ... be amazed that they allow off topic banter", and I explained, with backing from ubuntuforums & matthew's post, why I'm not amazed and don't think i should be.

Why suddenly do you want me to find another forum ... ?



And yes, I know already know Ubuntuforums is different. That's not the point. It is clear that the decision to include a large 'community' element in the forums (Cafe & it's offshoots such as OPP) has been beneficial, or even instrumental, to the success of the forums, and possibly the success of ubuntu itself.
So telling me other forums have less or none of this, just kinda confirms my point.

LaRoza
September 16th, 2008, 11:14 PM
An expressed opinion will cause a debate, but okay.

I mean, I have said I am Christian and more specific beliefs along the way, but I never tried to convince people I am in the right or they are wrong.

My only contributions to religious debates would be in in the concept of religion as a whole, and that was only for a short time (you probably can't even find those discussions).

Oldsoldier2003
September 17th, 2008, 12:10 AM
One of us misses the point here, and i think it's you.

OldSoldier is clearly talking about Ubuntuforums when he says 'This is an internet forum run by volunteers ... be amazed that they allow off topic banter", and I explained, with backing from ubuntuforums & matthew's post, why I'm not amazed and don't think i should be.

Why suddenly do you want me to find another forum ... ?



And yes, I know already know Ubuntuforums is different. That's not the point. It is clear that the decision to include a large 'community' element in the forums (Cafe & it's offshoots such as OPP) has been beneficial, or even instrumental, to the success of the forums, and possibly the success of ubuntu itself.
So telling me other forums have less or none of this, just kinda confirms my point.

Actually you take it out of context. the important part of the clause was it ( the forum) is owned by Canonical. Thats why you should be amazed, RHEL doesn't allow such stuff on their official site Microsoft doesn't, and I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't either.

mips
September 17th, 2008, 08:36 AM
Thats why you should be amazed, RHEL doesn't allow such stuff on their official site Microsoft doesn't, and I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't either.

Would you really like to be compared to the likes of Novell, Red Hat, Apple, MS? I always thought Ubuntu was different ;)

koenn
September 17th, 2008, 08:46 AM
Actually you take it out of context. the important part of the clause was it ( the forum) is owned by Canonical. Thats why you should be amazed, RHEL doesn't allow such stuff on their official site Microsoft doesn't, and I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't either.
Actually, I put it in a broader yet relevant context, by introducing the community aspect.
There's not really such a thing as a Microsoft community, or a Dell community for that matter (although MS / Dell / ... might want you to believe otherwise), and the RH and Apple (or whatever other example ... Debian ?) communities don't compare to Ubuntu (in size, grow rate, adoption rate of the OS, target audience, the way users identify with the product, ...) precisely because ubuntuforums explicetly promotes the community feel, and allowing for "off topic banter" on the forums was (at least at some point in the past, re. Matthew's post quoted earlier) a succesful tactical move to accomplish that.

fiddledd
September 17th, 2008, 08:47 AM
It is clear that the decision to include a large 'community' element in the forums (Cafe & it's offshoots such as OPP) has been beneficial, or even instrumental, to the success of the forums, and possibly the success of ubuntu itself.

I agree, and I think others do too. Though probably not any members of the staff here.

LaRoza
September 17th, 2008, 08:47 AM
Would you really like to be compared to the likes of Novell, Red Hat, Apple, MS? I always thought Ubuntu was different ;)

Support wise, it wouldn't be much different.

A free public support forum is a free public support forum no matter what is is for.

LaRoza
September 17th, 2008, 08:49 AM
I agree, and I think others do too. Though probably not any members of the staff here.

Considering the small amount of users who use the OPP, it isn't that essential. It keeps less than 50 users active, that is it. And they are not active much elsewhere.

Artificial Intelligence
September 17th, 2008, 08:54 AM
Considering the small amount of users who use the OPP, it isn't that essential. It keeps less than 50 users active, that is it. And they are not active much elsewhere.

As LaRoza said, but %95 of the troubles comes from there (if you don't count the spam bots).

fiddledd
September 17th, 2008, 08:55 AM
Considering the small amount of users who use the OPP, it isn't that essential. It keeps less than 50 users active, that is it. And they are not active much elsewhere.

Less than 50 members, thanks for that. I actually asked that question in another thread, without receiving an answer.

You have inadvertently answered it now.

mips
September 17th, 2008, 09:09 AM
Does one get beans for posting in the cafe & omgpp?

Artificial Intelligence
September 17th, 2008, 09:12 AM
Does one get beans for posting in the cafe & omgpp?

Nope

Canis familiaris
September 17th, 2008, 01:39 PM
Considering the small amount of users who use the OPP, it isn't that essential. It keeps less than 50 users active, that is it. And they are not active much elsewhere.

Could I be sarcastic?


What about redirecting this whole site to Microsoft Website, since only a microscopic minority of computer users use Ubuntu. I mean so small amount of people use Linux, it is not essential. It keeps less than 0.8% to use it that is it. And they are not helping Microsoft also...

LaRoza
September 17th, 2008, 02:55 PM
Less than 50 members, thanks for that. I actually asked that question in another thread, without receiving an answer.

You have inadvertently answered it now.

I believe the answer is lower. The OPP regulars are very low in numbers, although they are usually active and present in the OPP.

I am basing it off my experiences in there and the sticky about OPP regulars.


Does one get beans for posting in the cafe & omgpp?
Not anymore.


Could I be sarcastic?

What about redirecting this whole site to Microsoft Website, since only a microscopic minority of computer users use Ubuntu. I mean so small amount of people use Linux, it is not essential. It keeps less than 0.8% to use it that is it. And they are not helping Microsoft also...
You can try ;)

That would not help the goal of this forum, therefore, that is not logical. The goal of this forum is to primarily provice tech support.

Canis familiaris
September 17th, 2008, 03:21 PM
That would not help the goal of this forum, therefore, that is not logical. The goal of this forum is to primarily provice tech support.


But we should primarily focus for giving tech support for Windows users to remove Malware, sove their problems, etc. They don't need *nix.


The goal of OMGPP is to seperate off-topic posts and allow them in the forum so that the community can have well deserved rest, and at the same time check the support forums at the same time. People like me do not have enough knowledge to always participate in Support Forums, and we do need an off topic forum.
Not all of us are proficient enough to enjoy ourselves at Programming Talk.
Seriously, I think you guys are looking at an "Easy" solution.
Remember "Easy" Solution != Good Solution

LaRoza
September 17th, 2008, 04:32 PM
The goal of OMGPP is to seperate off-topic posts and allow them in the forum so that the community can have well deserved rest, and at the same time check the support forums at the same time. People like me do not have enough knowledge to always participate in Support Forums, and we do need an off topic forum.
Not all of us are proficient enough to enjoy ourselves at Programming Talk.
Seriously, I think you guys are looking at an "Easy" solution.
Remember "Easy" Solution != Good Solution

The OPP isn't a "rest" the Cafe is.

Do you get more relaxation from joking around in the Cafe and Games section, or the OPP discussions?

Remember, "Simple solution" == "probably the best"

aysiu
September 17th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Anurag_panda, the posts you were responding to weren't talking about the goal of the OMGPP. They were talking about the goal of the Ubuntu Forums.

The primary purpose of the Ubuntu Forums is not to provide a place for discussions about governmental politics and organized religion. The primary purpose of the Ubuntu Forums is to provide technical support for the Linux distribution called Ubuntu.

Anything else here is expendable. Since the Community Cafe topics at least have tangentially to do with Ubuntu (Linux and computing discussion mostly), it's less likely to get severed, but it is also not necessary to the functioning of the forums. The only things that are necessary to the forums are the technical support areas.

We do not need an off-topic forum. If an off-topic forum can be civil and people can refrain from creating huge dramas over every thread closure, then there's no problem with having an off-topic forum. If it becomes difficult to maintain, it can be cut off.

If you (Anurag_panda) need an off-topic forum, there's absolutely no reason it has to be here. You can discuss governmental politics, organized religion, affirmative action, immigration policy, gun control, and Paris Hilton's latest exploits on various other forums (i.e., not the Ubuntu Forums) and with a lot less moderator intervention.

LaRoza
September 17th, 2008, 04:47 PM
If you (Anurag_panda) need an off-topic forum, there's absolutely no reason it has to be here. You can discuss governmental politics, organized religion, affirmative action, immigration policy, gun control, and Paris Hilton's latest exploits on various other forums (i.e., not the Ubuntu Forums) and with a lot less moderator intervention.

Or IRC. Rarely do they stay on topic.

But I am curious... "Paris Hilton's latest exploits on various other forums". I didn't know she was a forum user.

Canis familiaris
September 17th, 2008, 04:49 PM
The OPP isn't a "rest" the Cafe is.
I would rather it as an extension of Cafe rather than being closed...
And I don't wish the Cafe to be full with non-tech talk either.


Do you get more relaxation from joking around in the Cafe and Games section, or the OPP discussions?
Both. I don't participate in serious threads generally. I dont have much understanding in Politics, Race, Religion...(thank god)

LaRoza
September 17th, 2008, 04:53 PM
I dont have much understanding in Politics, Race, Religion...(thank god)

:lol:

Canis familiaris
September 17th, 2008, 05:03 PM
We do not need an off-topic forum. If an off-topic forum can be civil and people can refrain from creating huge dramas over every thread closure, then there's no problem with having an off-topic forum.
Which is precisely I want.

chucky chuckaluck
September 19th, 2008, 01:43 PM
We do not need an off-topic forum. If an off-topic forum can be civil and people can refrain from creating huge dramas over every thread closure, then there's no problem with having an off-topic forum. If it becomes difficult to maintain, it can be cut off.

closing a thread for no reason is not a civil act.

Kernel Sanders
September 19th, 2008, 10:45 PM
What I don't understand, and haven't seen a satisfactory reply to yet is this:

Standard practice on every internet forum in existance is to close troublesome threads. If a moderator isn't sure, then the thread remains open while they discuss it in the mods room.

This has the advantage of the userbase not being infuriated by premature and unjust thread closures.

"Closed for review" is ridiculous because it always errs on the side of thread closures, something that everyone knows infuriate the userbase. It leads to more thread closures, more unjust thread closures, and just makes the mods look stupid if the thread has to be later re-opened.

If a thread is so harmful that it needs to be shot on site, then that's obvious, and there is absolutely no need for it to be closed for review. Closed for review are for threads that the mod is unsure about, which means that there is very little wrong with allowing the thread to continue while the mods discuss whether it should be closed.

This is common sense, doesn't wind up the user base, and doesn't cause hostility towards the moderating staff.

aysiu
September 19th, 2008, 10:54 PM
"Closed for review" is ridiculous because it always errs on the side of thread closures, something that everyone knows infuriate the userbase. If there's a gray area, it can be dark gray or light gray.

If it's light gray, I tend to leave threads open.

If it's dark gray, I'd rather close it for review. It means I'm inclined to close it (i.e., it is that bad) but I want to double-check with the other staff about it.

You make it sound as if there are only three situations: needs closure, may need closure, and doesn't need closure. But within may need closure, there is a lot of variety. A lot of the may need closure is close to needs closure and thus can rightly be closed for review.

What I find ridiculous is the userbase getting infuriated about it. Such a sense of entitlement to off-topic potentially inflammatory discussions is misplaced on a technical support forum.

LaRoza
September 19th, 2008, 11:11 PM
Standard practice on every internet forum in existance is to close troublesome threads. If a moderator isn't sure, then the thread remains open while they discuss it in the mods room.

This has the advantage of the userbase not being infuriated by premature and unjust thread closures.

It leads to more thread closures, more unjust thread closures, and just makes the mods look stupid if the thread has to be later re-opened.

This is common sense, doesn't wind up the user base, and doesn't cause hostility towards the moderating staff.

How do you know what you don't see? How do you know we don't have discussions? This forum is massive. A committee for every single action would be a nightmare.

Threads are closed all the time. Most of the time, a thread closing is justified and not contested. When it is contested, it is more of the lines of a question why the thread was closed, or a clarification of the intent. Only in the OPP do people start off by being infuriated.

It doesn't make mods look stupid. It makes the staff look flexible.

Hostility isn't a problem because of the attitude of the OPP crowd.




What I find ridiculous is the userbase getting infuriated about it. Such a sense of entitlement to off-topic potentially inflammatory discussions is misplaced on a technical support forum.

+1000

In the Palin leak thingy, I closed it because I mistook the intent of the thread and wasn't able to get the link working. I had left the forum and come back and found people all up in arms in being infuriated over it and my actions being called "rubbish".

This is part of my response to an email with an admin about why I don't think the OPP and some people in it should not be part of UbuntuForums:



I find the complaints to be very inappropriate. Blatent this. Abuse that. Corruption, biases, etc. This is the kind of infuriating rubbish i'm talking about. (Read it both ways :-)).

That is why I think the OPP should be closed. A simple misunderstanding leads to grand accusations and indignation from the start whereas anyone one else would have been a bit more cordial.

Kernel Sanders
September 19th, 2008, 11:35 PM
What I find ridiculous is the userbase getting infuriated about it. Such a sense of entitlement to off-topic potentially inflammatory discussions is misplaced on a technical support forum.

It's got nothing to do with a "sense of entitlement", and this isn't soley a technical support forum.

This forum is advertising itself as a place to come and talk about Ubuntu, linux in general, technology in general, and general discussion. If that isn't true then you need to delete about 20 of the additional forums, like other OS talk, OMGPP, and the cafe. Yes, they are additional to the forums main purpose, but they are there to be used, and they are being offered freely, so decrying people who like to post there with "this is just a support forum" really doesn't fly, regardless as to how much you wish it did.

Therefore, given that your advertising this, people come here after no doubt being drawn through their interest in Ubuntu. With this forum, indeed like pretty much every forum in existance, people have an expectation to be able to come and post freely and within the rules. Posting often takes time and effort for some people, as some posts can be quite long, some people may be slow at typing, or not even have English as their first language. They settle down, make a post, and then........ oh wait, that interesting discussion they were looking forward to has been closed because a mod isn't sure whether they should be allowed to be having it. It's irritating, it's frustrating, and it doesn't reflect well on the moderating staff or this forum as a whole. Whether you accept it or not, some people feel this way, and the fact that you are so willing to ignore their and indeed my feelings and feedback on this issue demonstrates a certain arrogance that contravenes the spirit Ubuntu is supposed to represent.


How do you know what you don't see? How do you know we don't have discussions? This forum is massive. A committee for every single action would be a nightmare.

Threads are closed all the time. Most of the time, a thread closing is justified and not contested. When it is contested, it is more of the lines of a question why the thread was closed, or a clarification of the intent. Only in the OPP do people start off by being infuriated.

It doesn't make mods look stupid. It makes the staff look flexible.

Hostility isn't a problem because of the attitude of the OPP crowd.


Do you really not see that that sort of needlessly arrogant and insulting attitude doesn't help? You've made several such posts and it's not helping either your reputation or the reputation of the forum staff.

If people raise feedback that you disagree with then fair enough, but to outright dismiss the opinions of others, ignore their concerns and brand a whole "crowd" as a problem due to their attitude doesn't make you look too good at all.

In addition, as I believe I have alluded to previously, I have moderated on one of the largest gaming forums in Europe, so I not even close to being "green" on the issue of moderation on a very large forum.



+1000

In the Palin leak thingy, I closed it because I mistook the intent of the thread and wasn't able to get the link working. I had left the forum and come back and found people all up in arms in being infuriated over it and my actions being called "rubbish".

This is part of my response to an email with an admin about why I don't think the OPP and some people in it should not be part of UbuntuForums:

Given the arrogance that I am both surprised and saddned to see that you have displayed here, i'm not remotely surprised.

You sought to moderate according to your own conscience, and although I actually agreed with your opinion on the issue, it wasn't even close to being the acceptable actions of a forum moderator, and it isn't even the first time you've done it.

In any case, that issue has been discussed appropriately in the Resolution Centre, and it's inappropriate to refer to them again here in the open forums, so i'll say no more about that.

Overall I think you have a somewhat blinkered view of OMGPP because of the reception your actions in particular have recieved. Again, it saddens me to see that your first thought is that the problem lies with all the complainants rather than with your own conduct. If it was me, i'd have to think carefully whether my behaviour was a contributing factor, and whether I could alter it to a more friendly approach while still seeking to uphold the rules of the forum. That's just me though, maybe that will come with you the more experience you get?

LaRoza
September 19th, 2008, 11:39 PM
Do you really not see that that sort of needlessly arrogant and insulting attitude doesn't help?

You are right. The needlessly arrogant and insulting attitude is one of the reason the OPP is not favoured by me anymore.



If people raise feedback that you disagree with then fair enough,

There is feedback and then there is feedback. Look at the wording of the complaints from the various forums.



In any case, that issue has been discussed appropriately in the Resolution Centre, and it's inappropriate to refer to them again here in the open forums, so i'll say no more about that.

It has been discussed inappropriately in the Resolution Centre and was very insulting to me. Why should I care?



Overall I think you have a somewhat blinkered view of OMGPP because of the reception your actions in particular have recieved.
As I said, it isn't about me. Everyone else gets the same treatment.

Kernel Sanders
September 19th, 2008, 11:42 PM
It has been discussed inappropriately in the Resolution Centre and was very insulting to me. Why should I care?

Maybe you should "take a break", or go get a coffee or something, because that sort of reply does you no favours, and is inappropriate coming from a moderator :(

aysiu
September 19th, 2008, 11:44 PM
It's got nothing to do with a "sense of entitlement", and this isn't soley a technical support forum.

This forum is advertising itself as a place to come and talk about Ubuntu, linux in general, technology in general, and general discussion. If that isn't true then you need to delete about 20 of the additional forums, like other OS talk, OMGPP, and the cafe. Yes, they are additional to the forums main purpose, but they are there to be used, and they are being offered freely, so decrying people who like to post there with "this is just a support forum" really doesn't fly, regardless as to how much you wish it did. We are primarily a support forum. That means if there's any conflict that arises, the support side of things will always be favored over general discussion. Always.

But, yes, you can talk about Ubuntu, Linux in general, and technology in general. That's what the Community Cafe is for, and there are very few instances of closed for review in the Community Cafe.

OMGPP (otherwise known as the Backyard) was not always around, and it may not continue to be around. There's absolutely no reason the Ubuntu Forums has to host a hotbed of discussions about race, sex, governmental politics, and organized religion. There are flamewars enough just dealing with KDE and Gnome.

The "We're entitled to talk about things not even remotely related to Ubuntu, no matter how ugly things get, and no matter how controversial the subject" line really doesn't fly, regardless as to how much you wish it did.

LaRoza
September 19th, 2008, 11:46 PM
Maybe you should "take a break", or go get a coffee or something, because that sort of reply does you no favours, and is inappropriate coming from a moderator :(

What? I said the thread in the Resolution Centre was insulting to me.

How would you feel if I responded to a post by you as saying it is rubbish?

I am not looking for favours either, and it is entirely appropriate to tell you when I was insulted unless you think I am a piñata for the forum. (And I don't drink coffee)

Kernel Sanders
September 19th, 2008, 11:46 PM
The "We're entitled to talk about things not even remotely related to Ubuntu, no matter how ugly things get, and no matter how controversial the subject" line really doesn't fly, regardless as to how much you wish it did.

Which part of my post, exactly, said that we should? :confused:

aysiu
September 19th, 2008, 11:56 PM
Which part of my post, exactly, said that we should? :confused:
The part I quoted, especially this bit:
This forum is advertising itself as a place to come and talk about Ubuntu, linux in general, technology in general, and general discussion. If that isn't true then you need to delete about 20 of the additional forums, like other OS talk, OMGPP, and the cafe. Yes, they are additional to the forums main purpose, but they are there to be used, and they are being offered freely OMGPP is not being offered freely. I was around before it came into being, and it came into being as an experiment, which I think has failed (I'm not speaking on behalf of all staff here). Before, we'd had a pretty strict policy about having no threads to do with organized religion or governmental politics, and a few vocal users whined about this policy. So instead of doing what we should have done then (which is tell them to go somewhere else for those discussions), we started up an area where they could talk about those things. Now, of course, people feel entitled to talk about those things, no matter how ugly things get, and the staff feel it might be okay to allow those discussions if they can be civil, but we're not going to play the "I have a right to talk about this!" game every time a thread gets out of hand.

The primary focus of the forums is technical support - bottom line. If people can talk about other things civilly and deal with the consequences for not doing so, then we will allow discussions about other things. You are not entitled to an area to talk about other things. The technical support is freely given. The off-topic banter is not.

And even the technical support areas are subject to the Code of Conduct.

Kernel Sanders
September 19th, 2008, 11:57 PM
What? I said the thread in the Resolution Centre was insulting to me.

How would you feel if I responded to a post by you as saying it is rubbish?

I am not looking for favours either, and it is entirely appropriate to tell you when I was insulted unless you think I am a piñata for the forum. (And I don't drink coffee)

Specifically, you said:



It has been discussed inappropriately in the Resolution Centre and was very insulting to me. Why should I care?


I had a complaint because you closed a thread according to your own conscience rather than adhering to the forum rules.

The resolution centre was the appropriate place, and in line with the CoC. You suggested that it wasn't.

Again, the fact that you were insulted is entirelly personal. I myself have been the subject of both complaints and praise as a moderator. You learn to get a thick skin for these kinds of things. Complaints are normal, and part of the job. Complaining on the open forums that you were insulted at a complaint is wholley improper, and to address it to the person who made the complaint only compounds the error. Your behaviour is inappropriate for a moderator of any forum, but here especially. That's why I suggested that you take a break, get a coffee and come back with fresh eyes. You are obviously frustrated at the somewhat less favourable aspects of being a moderator, and posted inappropriately as a result. I have no desire to encourage you to behave in such a manner, and was just offering some simple, well meaning advice to bring it to an end. No more, no less.

The "Why should you care?" aspect needs less of an analysis.

In any case, I don't feel entirelly comfortable discussing your inappropriate remarks towards me on the open forums. It may lead to a precident that others may wish to use towards either yourself or other moderators, which isn't fair on the moderating staff as a whole. In addition, nothing helpful can come from discussing this here, so i'll refrain from any more comments along this particular topic.

LaRoza
September 20th, 2008, 12:01 AM
I had a complaint because you closed a thread according to your own conscience rather than adhering to the forum rules.

The resolution centre was the appropriate place, and in line with the CoC. You suggested that it wasn't.

Oh? You know my motives? The admins know why I had originally closed it because I told them when asked. You don't know. Don't pretend you do, or I will start showing you how fruitless it is to assume motives.

Actually, my closing was for a reason you aren't even close to. I had mistaken the thread for something else and wasn't around when I was asked to clarify (by then it had been reopened.) The OP PM'd me and asked nicely and I would have re-opened if I were around at the time.



You learn to get a thick skin for these kinds of things.

Yes, but you shouldn't start doing it to other people.



In any case, I don't feel entirelly comfortable discussing your inappropriate remarks towards me on the open forums.

I do feel comfortable discussing your inappropriate remarks about me in the open forum.

schauerlich
September 20th, 2008, 12:03 AM
I don't even have to moderate it and listening to all this OMGPP drama makes me want it to just get closed...

LaRoza
September 20th, 2008, 12:04 AM
I don't even have to moderate it and listening to all this OMGPP drama makes me want it to just get closed...

Yes, it would be nice if people were more respectful like the person who PM'd me about closing that thread, instead of making insulting threads on it and making grand assumptions of other motivations.

Kernel Sanders
September 20th, 2008, 12:10 AM
The part I quoted, especially this bit:

Ah, so you misred, as none of that indicated this at all:



We're entitled to talk about things not even remotely related to Ubuntu, no matter how ugly things get, and no matter how controversial the subject




OMGPP is not being offered freely.


It's a forum that is open to posts from registered users. It's being advertised as part of the forums and being offered freely. That seems fairly common sense to me? :confused:



Now, of course, people feel entitled to talk about those things, no matter how ugly things get


I do of course agree that people feel entitled to talk about a subject that is being offered for discussion, and rightly so. The same way in that I would feel entitled to talk about suse in the suse forum, or windows in the windows forum? Although I would rename "entitled" to "reasonable expectation".

I do of course agree that no-one in their right mind would or should reasonably expect to continue to discuss a topic that has turned ugly. That is really not what i'm saying at all.



and the staff feel it might be okay to allow those discussions if they can be civil, but we're not going to play the "I have a right to talk about this!" game every time a thread gets out of hand.


No-one's saying they have to, just that it is less frustrating for the user base that they either close a thread that they are sure a thread should be closed, or the moderators agree that a thread should be closed. "Closing for review" is doing more harm that good. The concept itself is wrong and frustrating, and therefore it's unfair on the moderating staff to use it, as by definition there is no way you can use it without frustrating the user base, which causes more resentment towards you.

Believe it or not, what I am proposing also seeks to end many of the current complaints!



The primary focus of the forums is technical support - bottom line. If people can talk about other things civilly and deal with the consequences for not doing so, then we will allow discussions about other things. You are not entitled to an area to talk about other things. The technical support is freely given. The off-topic banter is not.


Both are being freely given at the moment. You cannot provide a forum without giving it freely. Forums don't work that way. If you don't want to freely offer a forum, then delete it tbf.

Again, I would like to suggest that you are confusing "entitlement" with "reasonable expectation". People will always feel that they have a reasonable expectation of using a forum that has been made available, and according to the rules. Newbies feel the same reasonable expectation to the beginners discussion. That's not a bad thing really?



And even the technical support areas are subject to the Code of Conduct.

Again, agreed, as well they should!

Kernel Sanders
September 20th, 2008, 12:14 AM
Oh? You know my motives? The admins know why I had originally closed it because I told them when asked. You don't know. Don't pretend you do, or I will start showing you how fruitless it is to assume motives.

Actually, my closing was for a reason you aren't even close to. I had mistaken the thread for something else and wasn't around when I was asked to clarify (by then it had been reopened.) The OP PM'd me and asked nicely and I would have re-opened if I were around at the time.


Yes, but you shouldn't start doing it to other people.



I do feel comfortable discussing your inappropriate remarks about me in the open forum.


Yes, it would be nice if people were more respectful like the person who PM'd me about closing that thread, instead of making insulting threads on it and making grand assumptions of other motivations.

Again, this is inappropriate, and I have already indicated that I have no desire or inclination to continue. You're comments show an unhelpful and inappropriate escalation that I will have absolutely no part in.

This is against the CoC, and I respectfully request that you cease this particular discussion with me.

Thanks.

rune0077
September 20th, 2008, 12:44 AM
The part I quoted, especially this bit: OMGPP is not being offered freely. I was around before it came into being, and it came into being as an experiment, which I think has failed (I'm not speaking on behalf of all staff here).

The experiment has failed because the experimenters have proven completely incapable of dealing with it. The staff has proven a complete failure when it comes to running the OMGPP (the café as well, which is certainly a much worse place for flamewars, insults and threats than the OMGPP ever was), and the reckless closing of threads has created 90% of the problems, and many a resolution center thread could easily have been avoided if the mods had just stopped to think before closing a thread.


Now, of course, people feel entitled to talk about those things, no matter how ugly things get, and the staff feel it might be okay to allow those discussions if they can be civil, but we're not going to play the "I have a right to talk about this!" game every time a thread gets out of hand.


At least half the threads closed (and probably more) are later reopened. People feel entitled to talk about those things within the CoC. Some mods close threads even when they are within the CoC, thus creating unecessary work for themselves.

LaRoza
September 20th, 2008, 12:58 AM
This is against the CoC, and I respectfully request that you cease this particular discussion with me.


Ok. Sorry if I offended you.

KiwiNZ
September 20th, 2008, 12:58 AM
This thread is getting too personal and heated.
I am going to close it for 24 hours to allow a cool off period.