PDA

View Full Version : Open Door Thread: Help Me Help You



zenwhen
October 16th, 2005, 09:51 PM
This morning has been wild. A lot of people have said a lot of things to me that I didn't particularly like hearing. I've said a few things that I might not have said had I not been very successfully flame-baited.

We all make mistakes. I have made a couple since I became a moderator.

I will first address the user poptones.

We first met in this thread:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=72810&page=2

It was in this thread that we had a pretty heated debate about the limits of dialup's transfer rate. We both got a little out of hand. I could have held myself to a bit of a higher standard. I closed it because it was out of hand and open flaming is not acceptable here.

This morning, this thread was posted:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=76918

I edited an anti-religion post out of the thread and closed it. I saw it going downhill and didn't want a flame-war in community chat. The thread was re-opened by an administrator. I then decided to participate in the thread by posting my political views. For this, I was criticized. I was flamebaiting because my opinions did not coincide with that of the rest of the thread posters.

Was I flamebaiting? I knew I would be flamed, yes. But, I posted no personal attacks. I posted no name-calling. I simply posted my thoughts as others had in the thread before. Since I was a moderator, and because I was the minority, I was attacked in a thread that popped up about the threads closure. The thread has been removed from Community Chat due to a certain poster deciding it was an open forum for him to make personal attacks on me and my competency as a moderator.

I did make that post for a reason, though.

I posted my exact thoughts to show that they would not be accepted because they did not conform to the norm in the Linux community. I posted in that thread to show why we need to either not have political discussions or have them in a separate area from community chat where people who don't want to wade through flame-wars don't have to see them.

We do have to have rules here. People are going to have to be accountable for what they post. If you make claims and don't back them up, you should have to answer for them. If you flame people, you posts should be edited to keep the discussion on track. We can't let the actions of a few ruin things for others.

I am simply trying to keep threads on topic and keep flame-wars out of our community. Political discussion is apparently very important to some of the members here, and I am trying to get you a place here on these forums to do it.

I may have been a bit harsh in the way I responded to those criticizing me. To the community, I apologize.

I want to take another shot at it. This is your thread to state, in a civil manner, what you think about my moderation tactics. I will respond, in turn, in a civil manner. I am open to suggestions here. I want to help this community thrive.

bluck
October 16th, 2005, 11:08 PM
We all make mistakes. I have made a couple since I became a moderator.


Being a moderator is not fun, as some might think it is. You have a lot to balance, and it can become quite a circus act as so many clowns will try to trip you up, simply because of the precarious nature of your position.

From what I've read, you were not very far out of line, for a user. not at all.

Personally, from my experience, its better (or do i mean safer?) to moderate in near silence.
But I wouldnt worry too much about these instances.
:)

macgyver2
October 16th, 2005, 11:37 PM
My views on this, zenwhen...

When I logged in this afternoon (EDT) and came across the politics thread it was already on the 45th-or-so post. I read through the whole thing, including your big post, then read the followup thread (now completely hidden), then read the original thread again. My problem never was that you're a conservative while I'm liberal. In fact, I was pleased the way you phrased your stances on the specifics (using the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life", for instance), even though I didn't agree with those stances for the most part. My problem is that from subsequent comments in the original thread, the second thread (which unfortunately I now cannot review again), and this thread I got the impression that you intentionally posted what you did to deliberately incite a flamewar. I'm not an ends-justify-the-means sort of person, so while you may have done what you did for a reason, you still did wrong, in my opinion.

Also, I feel there's something bigger that came out of this situation that needs to be addressed, and that is the editing/deleting of posts by the moderators in general. I came along the politics threads rather late and when I read through the original thread I had only your word that the post you edited really was inflammatory or offensive. Just as you say you won't believe the president (or anyone else for that matter, I assume) lied without seeing proof for yourself, I think that when a moderator makes the claim that a post violates the forum guidelines they should have to justify that claim...back it up with some proof. If necessary, move it to another place in the forums (maybe that area separate from Community Chat) if you don't want it to remain in the civilized sections...but please, enough with the censorship. As I said, this is a general concern of mine directed at all moderators in all cases where they edit or delete.

Finally, the thread that was completely hidden... To me that is totally unacceptable. When I made it to the end of that thread, just before it was removed, I saw what I assume is the post you're referring to when you talk about the personal attacks...but when I saw that post it had already been edited! I didn't see any personal attack. Now, if the action upon that thread would have ended with the editing, then what I said in the paragraph above would have applied. However, the thread was disappeared completely! The personal attack was gone, having been edited out, yet the thread was still hidden away, affecting other completely innocent posts. There were, what, 15 or so posts prior to the last, edited post? That's just completely unacceptable, in my opinion.

UbuWu
October 16th, 2005, 11:40 PM
There was another thread about the removed thread but it also seems to be removed... In that thread some good points were made about the moderation on these forums in general (not about you personally I think). As a moderator it is probably possible for you to still read that thread an I would suggest you do that, especially the last few posts by azz.

In general, I think if you are a moderator, you shouldn't be too strong in the expression of your opininions on the forums you are moderating. E.g. don't say things are absolutely impossible (even worse when you say it in all caps).

For the rest I think the moderators here are doing a great job, but shouldn't get too much involved in overheated discussions. Keep up the good work!

UbuWu
October 16th, 2005, 11:43 PM
Oh and please don't remove threads completely from the forums anymore... a lot of people have taken the time to post their opinion and even if some of those posts are inappropriate, not everything should just dissappear from the forums!

Maybe you could edit your post to add a link to the second thread that was removed as well? I think that is a prequisite if you want an unbiased opinion from people who didn't have the chance to read it.

zenwhen
October 16th, 2005, 11:47 PM
I am asked jdong to move the thread in question back into community chat. he just informed me that he has done so. Now you can see it all.

I will be forulating a response to what has been said thus far after a few more posts. The input thus far has been great. Thanks.

macgyver2
October 16th, 2005, 11:58 PM
I am asked jdong to move the thread in question back into community chat. he just informed me that he has done so. Now you can see it all.
Thank you for that.

zenwhen
October 17th, 2005, 12:16 AM
Also I apologize for that terrible grammar slip. I promise I am not drunk.

matthew
October 17th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Zenwhen, I think you were just a little overzealous in your moderation.

Your political views are not an issue as far as I am concerned. Overall I thought the thread was very civil and reflected the sort of atmosphere I have come to expect in these forums.

It seems what really touched off the strong reactions was that the thread was locked even though there were no code of conduct violations on the basis that they might occur. Granted, in general in a political thread the probability of a flamewar increases exponentially with each post made. However, as politics is not specifically forbidden as a topic moderation should be approached just as it would be for any other topic. Watch and wait. If nothing bad happens, let it ride.

EDIT: if the admins want to list politics alongside religion as banned topics in these forums they can. Until/unless that happens, though, it would be better to stick to the current forum guidelines (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item_gp#faq_new_faq_item).

The second thing was that as you were posting your political views (no problem with that, by the way) you came across in a very brusque and antagonistic manner.

Overall, I didn't see anything that would disqualify you from being a moderator, but I might suggest that you try to be more gentle in your manner as you express your thoughts (not compromising the content) and perhaps less proactive in attempting to prevent the potential for problems.

This is the idea I am referring in that last paragraph:

Heavy handed moderation is exactly what we need to keep from having our users who aren't here to stir up flame wars be run all over by loud mouthed spambots.
EDIT: I want to make sure you understand that I do not intend this as a personal attack at all. Zenwhen, I like you. I appreciate your post and your contribution to the community. My goal here is to hopefully help you see that you may not be coming across the way you want to be perceived.

KiwiNZ
October 17th, 2005, 12:38 AM
I would like everyone here to take something into account. The Moderators are not paid staff. We volunteer our services freely for the betterment of the Forum and Ubuntu .

We are quite often the only Moderator on and will be called upon to make judgements without support . Sometimes we will make mistakes. We are human.

Zen is a new Moderator and is doing a great job under trying circumstances.

Several have said we should not remove threads. That is a bad idea. Are the supporters of this idea saying that if a severely racists , or a offensive (sexually) threads are started we should leave them here all to see? If that is the case I would like to read your calm considerd and constructive reason why . Please include examples in the Media and public arena where that would occur.

UbuWu
October 17th, 2005, 12:42 AM
Ok, the "closed politics thread???" thread is back now, but it is closed. Nothing wrong with that, but please add a post to it stating the reasons it is closed now. Especially if you yourself are the last one posting, it is a little bit strange to have it locked without stating why and if possible referring (quoting would eve be better) to the forum guidelines.

UbuWu
October 17th, 2005, 12:50 AM
Several have said we should not remove threads. That is a bad idea. Are the supporters of this idea saying that if a severely racists , or a offensive (sexually) threads are started we should leave them here all to see?

There is no reason to remove whole threads in which a lot of people with good intentions posted because of some bad posts. Even in those cases you mention I rather see a good reply (and possibly locking the thread, but preferably not) from the moderators telling the poster that what he does is not appropriate on these forums (of course stating reasons) than having it just deleted. Be very cautious with deleting posts/threads, only keep that as a last resort when posts are very very offensive or otherwise inappropriate.

matthew
October 17th, 2005, 01:14 AM
Examples of moderator/staff posts in that thread that I thought were very appropriate and well done.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=415441&postcount=2
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=416421&postcount=13
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=417606&postcount=57

These demonstrate a standard I think is very acceptable and useful. Examples abound in many other threads as well of good moderation and good execution of moderator policy. In fact, I can think of (sorry no links) a few times when KiwiNZ has impressed me greatly.

My earlier post in this thread was not intended to belittle the contribution of the moderating/administration team, but in a sense to complement it by pointing out what I view as an anomaly in what is usually very clear, even-handedness in moderation. I also realize zenwhen is a new moderator and should be shown some slack here.

Do these guys need to delete stuff sometimes? Of course. There are the obvious things like violence, porn, spam and so on--all of which is mentioned in the moderator guidelines, right?

Anyway, this just highlights a weakness in an otherwise very strong community. What are the guidelines for administration/moderators as well as for users and how will those guidelines be put into practice? Consistency I can deal with, even when I may disagree. Arbitrary decisions or the appearance thereof bug the heck out of me.

poptones
October 17th, 2005, 01:20 AM
Removing threads (even posts, IMO) is a bad idea. Silencing speech removes the person from accountability for their speech and it squashes any possibility of otherwise unforseeable positive outcomes.

Here's a not so simple example: a representative of my state by the name of Trent Lott made a statement at a birthday celebration for an old school southern politican about how he "supported his values." Problem was, the values at the time he was reminiscing were of strict segregation, racism and lynchings - not exactly "values" we would want out officials to hold today. pretty much as a result of these statements alone, Trent Lott was forced to step down as Senate majority leader.

If Trent Lott had been "moderated" he would have been completely removed from accountability in this.

We do have to have rules here. People are going to have to be accountable for what they post. If you make claims and don't back them up, you should have to answer for them.

In the case of my thread (which you locked) YOU REMOVED YOURSELF from accountability. Your first comments were not only flat wrong but argumentetive and when you backpedaled through a revisionist history there was no opportunity to point this out because YOU had locked the thread. But it doesn't matter anyway, as even before you had locked it you had edited not only your own statements but MINE AS WELL.

This policy of allowing argumentetive, overbearing moderators to both participate in and "moderate" the same discussion is, in every way, a very bad thing.

TravisNewman
October 17th, 2005, 01:56 AM
zen-- I think that overall, you should just try to calm down and see things from other people's position more, and don't be so reactionary.

You admitted to intentionally flamebaiting, and that's not acceptable. Like someone else has said, the ends don't justify the means.

You admitted that you should have handled yourself differently with poptones.


I made no complaint when this happened, but you're asking for comment, so here goes:
Regardless of what you think of the case azz, jdodson, dataw0lf, and myself took to the Community Council, your conduct as a moderator in the #ubuntuforums channel was unacceptable. Because of my involvement, you told me "As far as I'm concerned, you're no longer welcome here." With the position of moderator, you also get a lot of responsibilities other than watching over posts. You represent the forum. That kind of conduct is unacceptable for a moderator, in my opinion.

I just think that, overall, you're too reactionary.

EDIT: just to add, people weren't attacking you because you're conservative. Hell, I'm about as bleeding-heart as I can be, and I agree with a lot of your points. I have a lot of conservative friends who I have meaningful discussions with. The problem was all in the abrasive tone you used. Saying that you're just being attacked because you're conservative is simply untrue, or at least unprovable (like it's not provable whether or not Bush lied, or was just terribly misinformed). From the posts there, and from the way I feel, it seems that you being conservative had nothing to do with it. It seems you may have gotten upset over the situation and just lost your cool over it. This is a situation where you need to take a few hours to cool off from before posting about, or even waiting til after a good night's sleep.

I applaud your move to open up the door to criticism. This is the kind of openness I hope all mods are open to, because it's really one thing that this forum needs (and the CC seems to agree with that too).

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 02:00 AM
Several have said we should not remove threads. That is a bad idea. Are the supporters of this idea saying that if a severely racists , or a offensive (sexually) threads are started we should leave them here all to see? If that is the case I would like to read your calm considerd and constructive reason why .
I'm one of the several, so I shall reply. :)

Regarding completely removing threads...I already said it and so has UbuWu: completely removing a thread because of one post or person wrongs the rest of the posters in that thread. It clearly goes against openness, one of the things Ubuntu is all about.

As for editing/deleting...I disagree with that as well. It still goes against openness and it leaves no room for accountability. If someone makes a post and a mod edits it before others see it...well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that my definition of humanity towards others does not include "blind trust". I would really hope that no mods would edit or delete or hide something just because they personally disagree or don't like it, but I can't be sure that something like that will never happen. It also lets the offensive poster off the hook, too. In the thread that was completely removed, I didn't get to read the offending post until the thread was reinstated in its original form. I was able to say that I thought zenwhen was wrong to say what he did but I couldn't say the same thing about Knome_fan because I never saw what Knome_fan wrote. Now that the original post is open, I understand how it might have offended zenwhen (but it still didn't justify the extremity of the moderation, in my opinion). The best way to have accountability is to have openness.


Please include examples in the Media and public arena where that would occur.
Two things here...first, I don't see how what the Media does should apply here. Just because the Media does (or doesn't do) something doesn't mean it's right. Heck, if you're going to use the Media in my country as an example then we should all just start posting random, made-up howtos with half the facts left out. :)

That being said, if you really want an example from the public arena then take a look at TV or movie ratings. Programs are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, MA. Movies are rated along the same lines and also have disclaimers at the beginning that tell you if the movie contains Strong Sexual Content or Excessive Violence and so on. If I don't want to see Excessive Violence then I don't watch. If I see the disclaimer yet watch anyway, I can't then go and complain that there was excessive violence.

Now, a possible solution would be to provide content filters...on the forums. The overwhelming majority of posts wouldn't need to be touched. If, however, a post like the politics one were to come along, something that might be offensive to some but does not violate the Code of Conduct, then a mod could yellow flag it. If it got out of hand and someone posted something racist or otherwise against the Code of Conduct then a mod would red-flag it. They would still have the option to lock the red-flagged thread (with a justification as to the reason)...but nothing is edited or deleted or otherwise censored. If a user doesn't want to risk being offended then they know not to read red posts. If they don't even like the iffy topics they can even avoid the yellows.

I'll close by stating something about me...one of the things that really offends me is someone else telling me at what things I should be offended. :)

matthew
October 17th, 2005, 02:24 AM
your conduct as a moderator in the #ubuntuforums channel was unacceptable. Because of my involvement, you told me "As far as I'm concerned, you're no longer welcome here."
I happened to be in the #ubuntuforums when that happened and can confirm the incident occurred as described. This is a prime example of reactionary and overzealous behavior that is so emotionally charged that it makes listening to your actual ideas (which have both merit and show real intelligence) hard.

claydoh
October 17th, 2005, 02:38 AM
On post removals, I must jump on the bandwagon and put my vote against it. Closing them off, yes that is fine if needed.

As to your "flamebaiting" I for one saw what you were doing, and even agree with your tactics and the reason behind it. If I, a "regular" forum member had done that, thats one thing, but as a moderator, that is another story. You are in a tough spot, caught between your opinions and your responsibilities and I do not envy you that at all.

zenwhen
October 17th, 2005, 02:56 AM
Ok, the "closed politics thread???" thread is back now, but it is closed. Nothing wrong with that, but please add a post to it stating the reasons it is closed now. Especially if you yourself are the last one posting, it is a little bit strange to have it locked without stating why and if possible referring (quoting would eve be better) to the forum guidelines.

That thread is going to stay how it is. This thread is serving that thread's purpose now. The thread in question is open. Let that one die.



This policy of allowing argumentetive, overbearing moderators to both participate in and "moderate" the same discussion is, in every way, a very bad thing.

I see your point, and am going to have to use discretion as far as your comments about that thread where we had our debate goes. I typed out a nice long paragraph about it and just backspaced it. I am done with the topic. We don't see eye to eye there.

I'll try to ignore the kind of things that drew me into that thread from now on. The misinformation in there couldn't have hurt anyone anyway I suppose.


zen-- I think that overall, you should just try to calm down and see things from other people's position more, and don't be so reactionary.

Both of those, I can and will work on.


You admitted to intentionally flamebaiting, and that's not acceptable. Like someone else has said, the ends don't justify the means.

I posted my onions without exaggeration. People weren't mature enough to handle it. Flame-baiting is posting something CREATED to draw flames. I posted my thoughts. We probably won't see eye to eye on this one. I wanted to show that conservative ideas would be balked at. I am pretty sure I did from a few of the comments on there. I do see how one could see it as flamebaiting and discount my ideas about the lack of tolerance for conservative ideas, but...

Azz's comment about supporting gay marriage (a VERY controversial topic) was as much flame bait as anything I said. He wasn't called out. I don't apologize for posting my ideas. The fact that i admitted I knew I would be flamed is the only thing that makes it “flame bait” The point is, I shouldn't have had to worry about being flamed at all.


I made no complaint when this happened, but you're asking for comment, so here goes:
Regardless of what you think of the case azz, jdodson, dataw0lf, and myself took to the Community Council, your conduct as a moderator in the #ubuntuforums channel was unacceptable. Because of my involvement, you told me "As far as I'm concerned, you're no longer welcome here." With the position of moderator, you also get a lot of responsibilities other than watching over posts. You represent the forum. That kind of conduct is unacceptable for a moderator, in my opinion.

No one made you leave. No one banned you. I just let you know how I feel. I don't pretend to like people. I certainly don't outside of these forums. I said it as nicely as I could say it, but had to say what I said. I wouldn't say it here, but could and did say it there.


EDIT: just to add, people weren't attacking you because you're conservative. Hell, I'm about as bleeding-heart as I can be, and I agree with a lot of your points. I have a lot of conservative friends who I have meaningful discussions with. The problem was all in the abrasive tone you used. Saying that you're just being attacked because you're conservative is simply untrue, or at least unprovable (like it's not provable whether or not Bush lied, or was just terribly misinformed). From the posts there, and from the way I feel, it seems that you being conservative had nothing to do with it. It seems you may have gotten upset over the situation and just lost your cool over it. This is a situation where you need to take a few hours to cool off from before posting about, or even waiting til after a good night's sleep.

You are probably somewhere around half right. I was also being flame-baited myself and was attacked in a lot of posts that were deleted by an Admin. I got worked up for a lot of reasons that are more or less unprovable, but should have avoided it anyway. I have admitted my wrongdoing there.

I will from now on make backups of anything I edit or remove. Not doing so was a big mistake.


I applaud your move to open up the door to criticism. This is the kind of openness I hope all mods are open to, because it's really one thing that this forum needs (and the CC seems to agree with that too).

Thank you for this comment. It actually does mean a lot.

I have received a great amount of feedback here. I will use it to help hone myself into a more moderate moderator. I thank all of you for your comments. If anyone has anything else to say, I will still be responding. I'll leave this stickied until 11PM Eastern time tomorrow.

poptones
October 17th, 2005, 03:21 AM
I was also being flame-baited myself...

Whoopee. The fact you even use the expression "flame baited" just reveals more about your immaturity. It's like the old wifebeater argument "she made me hit her."

Go look at my comments on slashdot - I "flame bait" people all the time. Hell, that might even be all I post there any more - and people do it to me. That doesn't mean I reply to every one of them. I also rarely use "mod points" even when I have them because they usually end up getting wasted when I find myself unable to resist the urge to reply to some worthy comment.

Drawing people into arguments can be a useful debate tool, but when you are on a "moderation" staff you are supposed to be part of a team that fosters stability and harmony, not the gunslinger who gets the town shot up in a quickdraw.

...and was attacked in a lot of posts that were deleted by an Admin.

Oh, the irony...

kleeman
October 17th, 2005, 03:21 AM
I think it takes guts to open yourself up like this and I applaud it. My feeling is that the feedback you got above is all to the good and it really sounds like you are taking it to heart.

I got upset with one thing that appeared to happen. You got upset by a political thread because the viewpoints were apparently different to yours. Your saw this as inflammatory but many others of us did not. Instead of waiting to see whether this thread would become destructive you unilaterally shut it down. This gave the appearance of bias by a moderator. Not good.

I have been in some very heavy duty political threads (on linux boards actually) with people with very different political beliefs to mine. Believe it or not, I ended up on the best of terms because both of us were trying to be reasonable. On the other hand some discussions have descended into flame fests and been locked. It really depends on the personalities involved and you really should wait for this all to become clear. As an example of what I am saying the thread on politics at the moment which was restored seems quite tame at present.

I hope my comments aren't too unpleasant and (genuinely) thanks for voluntarily moderating these fora which are a big part of the success of Ubuntu. I can understand how it can get very stressful

KiwiNZ
October 17th, 2005, 03:34 AM
When I referred to media that means , Radio ,television ,Movies , newspapers , internet,books etc etc. If you believe that theyare unmoderated or uncensored then you are mistaken.
These forums are public media. You know when you join that this is a moderated forum

From the Site rules etc
"3. .... Moderators will often edit posts as they see fit. Please respect their choices."

This is primarily a Tech Support Forum for Ubuntu. There is no requirement for us to offer teh "Community Chat" forum. We do as a service. We would ask that you respect that and all customers we serve.
And we will remove content that we believe is inappropriate for the site.

Remember freedom of speech does not mean that you act without rules or regard to the rest of the community.

matthew
October 17th, 2005, 03:35 AM
This is what you wrote just now.


I posted my onions without exaggeration. People weren't mature enough to handle it. Flame-baiting is posting something CREATED to draw flames. I posted my thoughts. We probably won't see eye to eye on this one. I wanted to show that conservative ideas would be balked at. I am pretty sure I did from a few of the comments on there. I do see how one could see it as flamebaiting and discount my ideas about the lack of tolerance for conservative ideas, but...
This is what you wrote earlier in the thread in question completely unedited. I have some comments that will follow interspersed with specific examples from this post. I do not believe for one split second it was your conservative ideas that were being balked at and that is what I will try to address.


If this is going to go down, I'll participate.

I am a conservative. I am not a bible thumper. I used to be a southern baptist, but have long since become quite inactive in the church and somewhat of a heavy drinking sinner. Still yet, I am fiscally and socially conservative in the truest sense of the word. I don't form my opinions based on what conservative radio talk show hosts say. You can't judge me by the measuring sticks of conservative politics.

I am not Ronald Reagan, Sean Hannity, Rush, Bush, or Coulter. I share an opinion with each of those people here and there.

I stand against having any system in place that prevents those who don't work from failing. If you can work, but don't work, I don't want my money helping you.

I am anti abortion, undecided on gay marriage, pro gun, believe wars will be necessary until there are no humans or no human has an ounce of freedom, and I am pro death penalty.

I don't much care for people who rage against the government for the point of raging. Ive asked a lot of people like this, mostly girls wearing all black saying they wish Bush was dead, why they feel the way they do. All I get is "War for oil.", "Bush lied. They died.", and other assorted talking points that have no proof behind them. No one can tell me Bush lied. You have to prove he had knowledge that he was telling a mis truth. Not a single soul has attempted to do that. They need to read the definition of the word lie.

I like the fact that even people I cannot stand have a right to say what they think. Yeah, I closed this thread originally. I didn't do it because I didn't like the content. I love hearing other people's ideas. I did it because I didn't think this was the place for a heated debate. Apparently it is thought that this thread can go down without a debate. I have put the first dissenting opinions in it. Prove it.
Okay. Here we go with specifics.


If this is going to go down, I'll participate. This sounds like, "I'm already disgusted with the idea of this conversation but since it is here I'll just puke up some thoughts of my own." You are dripping with disdain and it sets the tone for the rest of the post.


I am a conservative...and other assorted talking points that have no proof behind them. There's not a thing in that whole section that anyone had a problem with you posting. This section also contains the actual political kernel of your post.


No one can tell me Bush lied. You have to prove he had knowledge that he was telling a mis truth. Not a single soul has attempted to do that. They need to read the definition of the word lie. Your first sentence here sounds like you are challenging people to a dual. Why do you feel so threatened? Up to this point there hasn't even been opportunity to comment on your politics. You are either taking past fights or imaginary attacks against you and inserting them here, where previously the tone of the thread had been very civil and welcoming. The reaction to your post begins here...not with your actual political views.


I like the fact that even people I cannot stand have a right to say what they think. Yeah, I closed this thread originally. I didn't do it because I didn't like the content. I love hearing other people's ideas. I did it because I didn't think this was the place for a heated debate. Apparently it is thought that this thread can go down without a debate. I have put the first dissenting opinions in it. Prove it. You like debate. No. You are not trying to participate in a debate. The HUGE chip on your shoulder precludes debate. You seem to fear an attack against you for which no evidence existed. I'm not speaking about your political views with Bush and Iraq, etc. I am talking about this thread. No one was attacking your views whatsoever. You don't agree with the politics of those who had posted previously. Okay. You said what you think in a clear and level-headed manner a couple of paragraphs up. Now you are throwing down the gauntlet. "Prove me wrong!" you appear to sneer snidely. It comes across as rude, arrogant, antagonistic and condescending and that is what has caused the controversy.

Bottom line: this is not about your politics, it's about your paranoia.

zenwhen
October 17th, 2005, 04:11 AM
The attack on my views was when my views were called flame-bait instead of views. Sorry. An attack really did happen no matter what you seem to have decided for yourself.

I didn't walk on my tip toes when I posted. Big deal. This is the part I am not apologizing for, or compromising on.

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 04:12 AM
When I referred to media that means , Radio ,television ,Movies , newspapers , internet,books etc etc. If you believe that theyare unmoderated or uncensored then you are mistaken.
These forums are public media. You know when you join that this is a moderated forum
I'm still not understanding the point here. What I'm getting is that you're saying just because other places do that then it should be done here as well...if I'm wrong, please clarify.

I don't believe that other media outlets are unmoderated or uncensored. I do believe that other media outlets are wrong to censor and that sometimes other media outlets use the wrong methods to moderate. I also believe that the "we do it because they do it" idea is not good.


From the Site rules etc
"3. .... Moderators will often edit posts as they see fit. Please respect their choices."

This is primarily a Tech Support Forum for Ubuntu. There is no requirement for us to offer teh "Community Chat" forum. We do as a service. We would ask that you respect that and all customers we serve.
And we will remove content that we believe is inappropriate for the site.
I am aware of what the guidelines say. I am aware that these forums are touted as being OUR community in those Guidelines yet WE (the community) do not have a say in the guidelines or how the forums are run. In addition, WE (the community) are told that the forums staff doesn't have to justify anything to US (the community). With those limitations, I don't think the forums are truly OUR community.

poptones
October 17th, 2005, 04:20 AM
I didn't walk on my tip toes when I posted. Big deal. This is the part I am not apologizing for, or compromising on.

And why you have no business being "moderator."

matthew
October 17th, 2005, 04:28 AM
The attack on my views was when my views were called flame-bait instead of views. Sorry. An attack really did happen no matter what you seem to have decided for yourself. I never said an attack didn't occur. I said that none had occurred prior to your making this post and that the tone of this post is what drew the attack, not the political content.

EDIT: I would hardly call the post that followed yours an attack, though.

I didn't walk on my tip toes when I posted. Big deal. This is the part I am not apologizing for, or compromising on. If you don't mind coming across to the world as an arrogant jerk (whether you are one or not) than I don't mind you acting like one.

I am absolutely not implying you should sidestep actual issues or compromise beliefs. I'm saying you have greater potential to be listened to when you express yourself in a less defensive and antagonistic manner.

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 04:45 AM
There is no reason to remove whole threads in which a lot of people with good intentions posted because of some bad posts. Even in those cases you mention I rather see a good reply (and possibly locking the thread, but preferably not) from the moderators telling the poster that what he does is not appropriate on these forums (of course stating reasons) than having it just deleted. Be very cautious with deleting posts/threads, only keep that as a last resort when posts are very very offensive or otherwise inappropriate.

and


Oh and please don't remove threads completely from the forums anymore... a lot of people have taken the time to post their opinion and even if some of those posts are inappropriate, not everything should just dissappear from the forums!

Maybe you could edit your post to add a link to the second thread that was removed as well? I think that is a prequisite if you want an unbiased opinion from people who didn't have the chance to read it.

Just so you know, us mods pretty much never delete threads. When they get out of hand or they are over the line, we move them to an area we call "the jail." Here we all talk and see if the thread can be saved. If it can, we edit and do it. If it can't it stays there with like 20 threads about how great Gentoo is, ****** spam, and the many pot smoking posts. We don't save all we could I admit, but we try. And if you are not happy, you can politely PM one of us or leave a thread in the forum discussion forum and us mods will see it. Personally 70% of the time I agree and fix the problem.

But the threads aren't deleted, just locked away. We don't believe in the Death Penalty around here. :)

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 04:46 AM
The attack on my views was when my views were called flame-bait instead of views. Sorry. An attack really did happen no matter what you seem to have decided for yourself.

I didn't walk on my tip toes when I posted. Big deal. This is the part I am not apologizing for, or compromising on.
Thing is, though, as you said:

I knew I would be flamed, yes.
You knew you would be flamed...and you posted anyway. As a moderator, you're supposed to lower the temperature of threads that are heating up. You did the opposite--and you did it knowingly. You've also stated that you wanted to provoke a reaction to prove your point that conservative ideas wouldn't be tolerated...so in that way your post really was flame-bait. Were the flamers wrong for coming at you? Yes. But I also believe you were wrong, not to state your ideas, but to state your ideas with the intent to escalate instead of defuse the situation.

zenwhen
October 17th, 2005, 04:52 AM
I didn't walk on my tip toes when I posted. Big deal. This is the part I am not apologizing for, or compromising on.

And why you have no business being "moderator."

You are entitled to your opinion. I hope one day I can change your mind on that one. Until then, lets try to stick the the topic which was telling me what you thought of my moderation, and not what you think the result of it should be.


I never said an attack didn't occur. I said that none had occurred prior to your making this post and that the tone of this post is what drew the attack, not the political content.

The intentions of the posts that were made after mine are kind of a hard thing to guess at. I see them one way and you see them another. It is quite subjective, and even the posters who made them would probably not validate me by saying they made them for the reasons I say even if they did. We'll never know, but I'll try to avoid the situation happening again.


I am absolutely not implying you should sidestep actual issues or compromise beliefs. I'm saying you have greater potential to be listened to when you express yourself in a less defensive and antagonistic manner.

I have already stated that this was something I would work on. You have been a big help here. Thanks.

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 04:57 AM
But the threads aren't deleted, just locked away. We don't believe in the Death Penalty around here. :)
Dang it! I so want to crack a joke here, but given how this whole situation started it's probably not appropriate...

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 04:58 AM
I am aware of what the guidelines say. I am aware that these forums are touted as being OUR community in those Guidelines yet WE (the community) do not have a say in the guidelines or how the forums are run. In addition, WE (the community) are told that the forums staff doesn't have to justify anything to US (the community). With those limitations, I don't think the forums are truly OUR community.

Ah! But that is not the truth. Regular users do have input in how the forum is run. The forum discussion forum is always watched, always. And many times good ideas come from that. For example: the recent complaints from forum Kubuntu users regarding their "second class citizenship" was taken seriously and now the forum tries to have less bias towards Gnome Ubuntu.

And more than that, I would argue that this is a forum run by users for users. It started as an Unofficial Forum by a single person- at first Ubuntu didn't want a forum. Its staff was all taken from the users here. I myself am no Linux wizard or superman, yet I was offered a chance to help run the forum. As a regular user (as opposed to a leet geek) I get to have a big say in how the forum is run, and I always look at and put forth good ideas users have about how the forum should be run. As a regular user, I get to influence the english Ubuntu Forum. You want a say? Well this is not now or ever a "each man equals one vote" kind of place. Its a meritocracy. All of the mods (minus me, I'm the fluke :) ) got their position by helping people on the forum or by adding to the community in some way. If you want in, I promise there is a clear path to getting in: go crazy, keep hitting the "new posts" link on the front page and help everyone you see. Recently some mods have gotten their postition quickly by showing a good small term of dedication- time is not a barrier.

mlomker
October 17th, 2005, 05:00 AM
Regarding completely removing threads...I already said it and so has UbuWu: completely removing a thread because of one post or person wrongs the rest of the posters in that thread.

One of the things that you (and others that have mentioned this point) are forgetting is that you can go back and edit your own posts at any time. It isn't unsual for me to edit a post three or four times before finishing. I make typos or go back to try to be more clear (sometimes even to 'moderate' myself). ;)

By moving a thread to a non-public forum ('the jail') we actually preserve evidence long enough for other moderators to review the thread. As previously mentioned, there are often only one or two mods online at any time.


trying to say is that my definition of humanity towards others does not include "blind trust"

There are discussions taking place regarding a 3rd-party review process (a non-member/non-mod panel) to which appeals can be made. If you were suggesting that we have the community vote on every moderation action then we might as well not have moderators...


I would really hope that no mods would edit or delete or hide something just because they personally disagree or don't like it, but I can't be sure that something like that will never happen.

I think the rules are sensible, but as others have pointed out there isn't anything in there about politics. In an ideal world the moderators would just impartially decide everything according to the forum rules, but just like the job of police officers there are a lot of gray area. How do you go about defining things like being considerate, respectful, and consultive (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct)?


If they don't even like the iffy topics they can even avoid the yellows.

As someone who only comes into the community chat reluctantly, I disagree with this. The Ubuntuforums are here to provide technical assistance and support for people wanting to run (k)ubuntu. 'Yellow' and 'Red' threads flat-out do not belong here...for any reason. The real question is defining what those guidelines will be.

I'd much rather be trying to solve technical problems. With that, I'll go back to helping people with ndiswrapper and video drivers...

agger
October 17th, 2005, 05:00 AM
I simply posted my thoughts as others had in the thread before. Since I was a moderator, and because I was the minority, I was attacked in a thread that popped up about the threads closure. The thread has been removed from Community Chat due to a certain poster deciding it was an open forum for him to make personal attacks on me and my competency as a moderator.

I did make that post for a reason, though.

I posted my exact thoughts to show that they would not be accepted because they did not conform to the norm in the Linux community.

That is simply not true; with the direction the thread was taking, you could have posted your views (even if you did formulate them quite strongly), and it would have been just another guy posting his views in a poll-type thread.

So, I believe you were being slightly paranoid. Your views did not generate a flamefest and wouldn't have done either way; what stirred up people was the preemptive closing of a thread that showed no signs of flaming.

zenwhen
October 17th, 2005, 05:03 AM
Thing is, though, as you said:

You knew you would be flamed...and you posted anyway. As a moderator, you're supposed to lower the temperature of threads that are heating up. You did the opposite--and you did it knowingly. You've also stated that you wanted to provoke a reaction to prove your point that conservative ideas wouldn't be tolerated...so in that way your post really was flame-bait. Were the flamers wrong for coming at you? Yes. But I also believe you were wrong, not to state your ideas, but to state your ideas with the intent to escalate instead of defuse the situation.

I am going to go right ahead and disagree with the people saying the ends don't justify the means here. It caused a real discussion of the pros and cons of political discussion in community chat. No conservatives had shown up posting their thoughts, and I thought another viewpoint belonged in there.

I knew, as a side effect, that there would be a little heat. I thought it could be handled without people basically thirsting for my blood. I was wrong there. I suppose I found a lot out about the negative parts of being a moderator today. I certainly will be less likely to share my viewpoints on topics like this in the future.

I won't be issuing an all-out "I was wrong here." apology for everything that happened today. I wasn't 100% in the wrong here. No one was.

I will be making a genuine effort to make the people who have complained here a lot more happy with the way I moderate. I will be gone for approximately 15 hours now. Someone will watch for this thread to go off topic. I will make another response tomorrow night.

matthew
October 17th, 2005, 05:03 AM
The intentions of the posts that were made after mine are kind of a hard thing to guess at. I see them one way and you see them another. It is quite subjective, and even the posters who made them would probably not validate me by saying they made them for the reasons I say even if they did. We'll never know, but I'll try to avoid the situation happening again. Fair enough. I guess we will just stalemate on this one because I am not even remotely convinced of your point. You are free to hold to it, though. My final comments below.


No conservatives had shown up posting their thoughts, and I thought another viewpoint belonged in there.

I knew, as a side effect, that there would be a little heat. I thought it could be handled without people basically thirsting for my blood. I was wrong there. I suppose I found a lot out about the negative parts of being a moderator today. I certainly will be less likely to share my viewpoints on topics like this in the future. I still don't believe it was your political content that caused the problem nor do I believe it was your conservative views that "drew the heat." I would genuinely welcome your viewpoints on topics and I'm glad you were willing to express a different. It would be sad if you decided to clam up instead of learning to express the exact same ideas in a better manner. You seem to be an intelligent and capable young man. Stay in the game, just learn the rules of clear and friendly communication and you might even convince others of your viewpoint rather than scaring them away or inciting them to attack.

You will not convince me based on the evidence that you were singled out because you are conservative any more than I am posting this because I like guitars. There just isn't a clear connection.

Okay. I think I'm done with this issue.

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 05:52 AM
Ah! But that is not the truth. Regular users do have input in how the forum is run. The forum discussion forum is always watched, always. And many times good ideas come from that. For example: the recent complaints from forum Kubuntu users regarding their "second class citizenship" was taken seriously and now the forum trys to have less bias towards Gnome Ubuntu.

And more than that, I would argue that this is a forum run by users for users. It started as an Unofficial Forum by a single person- at first Ubuntu didn't want a forum. Its staff was all taken from the user posts here. I myself am no Linux wizard or superman, yet I was offered a chance to help run the forum. As a regular user (as opposed to a leet geek) I get to have a big say in how the forum is run, and I always look at and put forth good ideas users have about how the forum should be run. As a regular user, I get to influence the english Ubuntu Forum. You want a say? Well this is not now or ever a "each man equals one vote" kind of place. Its a meritocracy. All of the mods (minus me, I'm the fluke :) ) got their position by helping people on the forum or by adding to the community in some way. If you want in, I promise there is a clear path to getting in: go crazy, keep hitting the "new posts" link on the front page and help everyone you see. Recently some mods have gotten their postition quickly by showing a good small term of dedication- time is not a barrier.
I knew the forum suggestion thing would be brought up when I posted. The suggestion threads and forums are superficial because in the end it still comes down to the say of one person or at times a handful of people and that small group does not have to justify anything to the community. I do not like that.

Recently a bunch of people were added to the forum staff. I don't deny that most absolutely deserved it. For instance, by the second week mlomker was on these forums I was already thinking man, that guy is a freakin' help machine. And KingBahamut was overdue for a promotion, in my opinion. But nonetheless, the selections were made behind-the-scenes. That, to me, is an insult. That right there says to me that these forums aren't truly OUR community. But okay, let's say I'll play the game...tell me, in this "meritocracy", what must WE (the community) do to "merit" openness from the forum staff.

You know though, I shouldn't be so harsh. I believe that these forums should be a meritocracy as well. I agree that to have a say in how the forums are run one should add to the community in some way. However, where we differ is that I believe that one adds to the community just by being in the community.

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 06:08 AM
I knew the forum suggestion thing would be brought up when I posted. The suggestion threads and forums are superficial because in the end it still comes down to the say of one person or at times a handful of people and that small group does not have to justify anything to the community. I do not like that.

Recently a bunch of people were added to the forum staff. I don't deny that most absolutely deserved it. For instance, by the second week mlomker was on these forums I was already thinking man, that guy is a freakin' help machine. And KingBahamut was overdue for a promotion, in my opinion. But nonetheless, the selections were made behind-the-scenes. That, to me, is an insult. That right there says to me that these forums aren't truly OUR community.

In a "you can use these facilities for free" sense, yes. As in something like a democracy, no. We do have a BDFL here on the forum - Ubuntu Geek. Things like Ubuntu and the kernel prove this is not always a bad thing. Do we users got to vote or something else on what features Ubuntu will have? No, the upper group decides that. Yet it calls itself a community distro. So its not all black and white.



But okay, let's say I'll play the game...tell me, in this "meritocracy", what must WE (the community) do to "merit" openness from the forum staff.

What must you do to get a good response? Keep asking in polite ways.



However, where we differ is that I believe that one adds to the community just by being in the community.

Yeah I don't believe that. I have a jail full on one post wonders to prove to me that not every member adds to the community. And I believe in the Linux model- just because its open doesn't mean everyone gets a say. Only a few people develop the kernel. Only a few people are forum staff here. Each group does the best we can do, but we make mistakes like human beings do.

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 06:16 AM
One of the things that you (and others that have mentioned this point) are forgetting is that you can go back and edit your own posts at any time. It isn't unsual for me to edit a post three or four times before finishing. I make typos or go back to try to be more clear (sometimes even to 'moderate' myself). ;)
Yes, and I use the edit feature...but only for spelling and grammar. If I do correct myself, I add, not edit. I leave the original thoughts there. I don't like that someone can edit entire sentences or paragraphs or even posts out of existence.


There are discussions taking place regarding a 3rd-party review process (a non-member/non-mod panel) to which appeals can be made. If you were suggesting that we have the community vote on every moderation action then we might as well not have moderators...
So I've heard. This could be very good...or very bad, depending on the way it's implemented.


I think the rules are sensible, but as others have pointed out there isn't anything in there about politics. In an ideal world the moderators would just impartially decide everything according to the forum rules, but just like the job of police officers there are a lot of gray area. How do you go about defining things like being considerate, respectful, and consultive (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct)?
Believe me, I give that a lot of thought (as it pertains to the broader realm of life in general, not just these forums). You're absolutely right, it's hard to define certain things.


As someone who only comes into the community chat reluctantly, I disagree with this. The Ubuntuforums are here to provide technical assistance and support for people wanting to run (k)ubuntu. 'Yellow' and 'Red' threads flat-out do not belong here...for any reason. The real question is defining what those guidelines will be.
If the forums are meant solely for tech-support then there should be no Community Chat. I myself would like to believe the forums are here to be an online community for Ubuntu users, not just a help-desk. As for flagging certain posts, that was a suggestion I threw out there for the way the forums are now (with Community Chat).


I'd much rather be trying to solve technical problems. With that, I'll go back to helping people with ndiswrapper and video drivers...
I've noticed, and you're one of the best. Don't let us Community Chat folks drag you down. ;)

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 06:42 AM
I am going to go right ahead and disagree with the people saying the ends don't justify the means here. It caused a real discussion of the pros and cons of political discussion in community chat.
So if someone was to come along and make a horribly racist comment--but with the intention that it would serve some end, a better purpose--it would be okay? Of course I can't say for certain that you'd edit or delete that hypothetical comment, I'm pretty certain that's what would happen. Yet if you did that would create a "do as I say, not as I do" atmosphere. That's not right. Lead by example.


I wasn't 100% in the wrong here.
I must definitely agree. And also I must join the others who've lauded you for starting this thread, in the open. I really respect that.

macgyver2
October 17th, 2005, 07:00 AM
Yeah I don't believe that. I have a jail full on one post wonders to prove to me that not every member adds to the community.
Everyone adds to the community. That's ubuntu, right? I am what I am
because of who we all are...

At the very least they've given the community examples of people who haven't added to the community. ;)

Seriously, though, your points (and all the others') taken.

blastus
October 17th, 2005, 07:52 AM
I did briefly look at the "politics of the Ubuntu user" thread thinking it would be about Linux politics. However, after only reading one or two sentences of one random post, it was apparent that it was not. There was another thread a little while back but that thread was quickly and rightly closed before it had a chance to offend people.

Personally, I'm glad those threads are closed. I NEVER EVER participate in such discussions. In fact, I not only not participate in such discussions, I also refuse to even read them.

kassetra
October 17th, 2005, 09:07 AM
Thank you all for your feedback.