I'll need a refresher on the issues raised but would be happy to contribute.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

What with the recent server problem, I assume Eric, and colleagues, would have more immediate things to draw his attention.

Assuming the servers have not settled, and the demand for WUs is being slowly resolver. Then prehaps this is again the right time to ask the Moderators for the outcme of the review and discussion?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

This has been discussed, but no one is around except me right now, so please wait until more moderators are around and some information can be posted here. We discussed these issues a few weeks ago, so I (we) will have to review what was said.

Information was brought to Eric's attention... Yesterday as I called Eric he was in the middle of the Database Recovery... If anyone took time to read Matt's Tech News you will see that the release of the the MutliBeam Seti Application has been delayed due to server issues... Tomorrow Matt, Jeff and Eric will be fully involved in the release of the new Seti Application. Things working well, I will call Eric and invite him to come and give us a few words...

Thank You (Chris S) for reminding everyone that this much time has passed...

What with the recent server problem, I assume Eric, and colleagues, would have more immediate things to draw his attention.

Assuming the servers have not settled, and the demand for WUs is being slowly resolver. Then prehaps this is again the right time to ask the Moderators for the outcme of the review and discussion?

Edit:
At the moment I do not suspect that moderators will open a new discussion.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

MODERATION POLICY: from Eric"Discussion of moderation policy is appropriate for this forum. Sometimes it's hard for that not to devolve into discussion of specific moderator actions. The line is hard to draw. I'm hoping to continue to expand the moderator base under the theory that lots of mods moderate the moderation."

Sometimes I wonder whether some moderators have become too sensitive according to posts by a specific number of people. It seems to me that several members of the moderation team sense flame-baits where there are none, and may produce the flames themselves by over-reaction because of misinterpretation. I can't blame them for misinterpretation of posts, because even moderators are not without failures.

But is it only my misinterpretation of moderation actions that I see the posts of a very limited number of posters are watched much closer than the posts of all other posters in the Cafe SETI?
Last night, when I watched the movie "Basic", I wondered, if there even is a "deliberate misinterpretation" of posts possible. Like this sentence which made that investigator doubt: "It's just a matter of how you tell the story." (sorry, my own translation)...

Just questions. No insults or flame-bait intended.

---

Account frozen...

......because even moderators are not without failures.

Good point. This is what i am always saying.

But is it only my misinterpretation of moderation actions that I see the posts of a very limited number of posters are watched much closer than the posts of all other posters in the Cafe SETI?

No.

Last night, when I watched the movie "Basic", I wondered, if there even is a "deliberate misinterpretation" of posts possible. Like this sentence which made that investigator doubt: "It's just a matter of how you tell the story." (sorry, my own translation)...

Der Ton macht die Musik / The sound makes the music.

---

MODERATION POLICY

from Eric: ". . . We could even extend it to having posting points such that people who consistently get moderated down would be allowed fewer posts per day."

The Following is 'Specifically being Addressed to Dr. Eric Korpela's ATTENTION' . . .


Well - IF this is to become a 'Rule' (per se) - then the Moderation of Threads / COmments shall have to looked @ 'very closely' . . . afterall - when a MODerator Moderates,

(Deletes / Hides / Locks) Threads / Comments - especially as in the Specific Case of a Moderator that Posted in 'said' Thread - certain "breaking of the Moderation Rules" -

then this is NOT a Good Policy - especially since the 'likelihood of a sort-of-agenda' comes to mind - in which a Particular MOD (or a group of MOD's) could set the ball in

motion for 'dismissal' or 'elimination' of Posting @ All - simply by their playing 'unfair' in the Forums . . . and i have Very Specific Details readily available

when You may deem it necessary to peruse said Informations - though it is quite the 'Complex' of Issues - in regards to that which i speak - i Shall take some of my 'Precious Time'

and work with You on this Specific Matter and provide You Said Documents / Records Sir . . . Please feel free to Contact me in the usual context - and we can discuss this Matter

in Private.


With Due Respect, and Thanking You for Your Time & Consideration,


Richard W Lubrich Jr (AKA leonardo, nobody & watCh out! @ SETI/BOINC since February 29, 2000)

But is it only my misinterpretation of moderation actions that I see the posts of a very limited number of posters are watched much closer than the posts of all other posters in the Cafe SETI?

No.

Er?? I got an email from Qui-Gon just the other day saying that you were all doing exactly that. He said that the 30 were being watched extra closely. So either you or Qui-Gon are lying about this.

---

Reality Internet Personality

No-one is lying. As I understood Champ, he meant that I didn't misinterpret the moderation actions.
I understood it that my assumption is right, that they do watch several posters (us and others) much closer then the entire rest.

---

Account frozen...

No-one is lying. As I understood Champ, he meant that I didn't misinterpret the moderation actions.
I understood it that my assumption is right, that they do watch several posters (us and others) much closer then the entire rest.

Ah my mistake. I must have read that wrong.

---

Reality Internet Personality

MODERATION POLICY

from Eric: ". . . We could even extend it to having posting points such that people who consistently get moderated down would be allowed fewer posts per day."

The Following is 'Specifically being Addressed to Dr. Eric Korpela's ATTENTION' . . .


Well - IF this is to become a 'Rule' (per se) - then the Moderation of Threads / COmments shall have to looked @ 'very closely' . . . afterall - when a MODerator Moderates,

(Deletes / Hides / Locks) Threads / Comments - especially as in the Specific Case of a Moderator that Posted in 'said' Thread - certain "breaking of the Moderation Rules" -

then this is NOT a Good Policy - especially since the 'likelihood of a sort-of-agenda' comes to mind - in which a Particular MOD (or a group of MOD's) could set the ball in

motion for 'dismissal' or 'elimination' of Posting @ All - simply by their playing 'unfair' in the Forums . . . and i have Very Specific Details readily available

when You may deem it necessary to peruse said Informations - though it is quite the 'Complex' of Issues - in regards to that which i speak - i Shall take some of my 'Precious Time'

and work with You on this Specific Matter and provide You Said Documents / Records Sir . . . Please feel free to Contact me in the usual context - and we can discuss this Matter

in Private.


With Due Respect, and Thanking You for Your Time & Consideration,


Richard W Lubrich Jr (AKA leonardo, nobody & watCh out! @ SETI/BOINC since February 29, 2000)

I would say that the idea of limiting a posters who get modded a lot is an appalling idea considering the way we have seen the moderation guidelines applied in the last few months. I think this would be away for those moderators who bear personal grudges to bring in permanent bans through the back door.

THIS SECTION REMOVED

If this posting limit rule were bought in, this injustice would go towards my posting score. Along with the many other posts that have been deemed (incorrectly) as 'flame bait' or 'off topic' or were deleted in retaliation for red X complaints made against a moderator. Considering the excuses used to delete posts of posters the moderators do not like, I think this system would lead to further injustices and allow further abuse of moderator powers to occur.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think this thread should be Closed for Further Review.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

If this posting limit rule were bought in, this injustice would go towards my posting score. Along with the many other posts that have been deemed (incorrectly) as 'flame bait' or 'off topic' or were deleted in retaliation for red X complaints made against a moderator. Considering the excuses used to delete posts of posters the moderators do not like, I think this system would lead to further injustices and allow further abuse of moderator powers to occur.

Imagine that, rules causing problems and people clamoring for more rules to "solve" (heh) the problems caused by the first rules.

I'm betting that when the new rules cause new problems in addition to the problems caused by the old rules, that some of you will clamor for even newer rules to "solve" (heh) the problems caused by the newer rules, the new rules, and the rules.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I think this thread should be Closed for Further Review.

Careful what you wish for.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think this thread should be Closed for Further Review.

Careful what you wish for.

I thought the capital letters on "closed, further," and "review" added a nice touch, a bit of incompetence, and a dash of parody. 8^]

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

But is it only my misinterpretation of moderation actions that I see the posts of a very limited number of posters are watched much closer than the posts of all other posters in the Cafe SETI?

No.

Er?? I got an email from Qui-Gon just the other day saying that you were all doing exactly that. He said that the 30 were being watched extra closely. So either you or Qui-Gon are lying about this.

Es99,
That is not what I said. And the difference is significant. My statement to you was, "Oh Esme, You and the rest of the Gang of 30 have been causing so much trouble that it is only natural we should keep an eye on you. Here's some advice for you: Step one: Post all you like without harassing other posters, including the moderation team, or breaking other rules of posting. No other steps are necessary." Please don't misrepresent what I said. You are not being watched extra closely, you are being watched in light of the fact that many of you have a history of causing trouble. But we also watch everyone else who posts, and of course that includes anyone whose posts are Red-X'ed.

MODERATION POLICY

from Eric: ". . . We could even extend it to having posting points such that people who consistently get moderated down would be allowed fewer posts per day."

The Following is 'Specifically being Addressed to Dr. Eric Korpela's ATTENTION' . . .


Well - IF this is to become a 'Rule' (per se) - then the Moderation of Threads / COmments shall have to looked @ 'very closely' . . . afterall - when a MODerator Moderates,

(Deletes / Hides / Locks) Threads / Comments - especially as in the Specific Case of a Moderator that Posted in 'said' Thread - certain "breaking of the Moderation Rules" -

then this is NOT a Good Policy - especially since the 'likelihood of a sort-of-agenda' comes to mind - in which a Particular MOD (or a group of MOD's) could set the ball in

motion for 'dismissal' or 'elimination' of Posting @ All - simply by their playing 'unfair' in the Forums . . . and i have Very Specific Details readily available

when You may deem it necessary to peruse said Informations - though it is quite the 'Complex' of Issues - in regards to that which i speak - i Shall take some of my 'Precious Time'

and work with You on this Specific Matter and provide You Said Documents / Records Sir . . . Please feel free to Contact me in the usual context - and we can discuss this Matter

in Private.


With Due Respect, and Thanking You for Your Time & Consideration,


Richard W Lubrich Jr (AKA leonardo, nobody & watCh out! @ SETI/BOINC since February 29, 2000)

I would say that the idea of limiting a posters who get modded a lot is an appalling idea considering the way we have seen the moderation guidelines applied in the last few months. I think this would be away for those moderators who bear personal grudges to bring in permanent bans through the back door.

THIS SECTION REMOVED

If this posting limit rule were bought in, this injustice would go towards my posting score. Along with the many other posts that have been deemed (incorrectly) as 'flame bait' or 'off topic' or were deleted in retaliation for red X complaints made against a moderator. Considering the excuses used to delete posts of posters the moderators do not like, I think this system would lead to further injustices and allow further abuse of moderator powers to occur.

Uhhh ... huh?!?
Folks, are we reading the same post of Eric's here?!?
Wasn't he talking about meta-moderation? The idea where randomly selected posts that a randomly selected mod has modded can then be reviewed by randomly selected posters to see if we think the post has been justifiably hidden?
If so, again I ask Eric where this proposal stands. Is it still likely to happen?
Oh ... and if you want someone capable with PHP, Buga1 of Calm Chaos might be of assistance if he has time and I think khe'd be more trustworthy than some others.
Or have I misunderstood or overlook something here?
If not, then please read more closely. (Ducking and running, lol.)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

But is it only my misinterpretation of moderation actions that I see the posts of a very limited number of posters are watched much closer than the posts of all other posters in the Cafe SETI?

No.

Er?? I got an email from Qui-Gon just the other day saying that you were all doing exactly that. He said that the 30 were being watched extra closely. So either you or Qui-Gon are lying about this.

Es99,
That is not what I said. And the difference is significant. My statement to you was, "Oh Esme, You and the rest of the Gang of 30 have been causing so much trouble that it is only natural we should keep an eye on you. Here's some advice for you: Step one: Post all you like without harassing other posters, including the moderation team, or breaking other rules of posting. No other steps are necessary." Please don't misrepresent what I said. You are not being watched extra closely, you are being watched in light of the fact that many of you have a history of causing trouble. But we also watch everyone else who posts, and of course that includes anyone whose posts are Red-X'ed.

Master Qui-Gon, I think you should review some very explanatory e-mails I sent you.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Master Qui-Gon, I think you should review some very explanatory e-mails I sent you.

I read them. Do you still have me blocked?