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.)

I was merely responding to the quoted section that Richard posted.

---

Reality Internet Personality

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?

I think its not that bad idea.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

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.

Response to Qui-Gon's post:

Yes. I read what you said (Qui-Gon). I did not quote your email on the boards because I would have been modded for quoting a private email.

First I take issue with the "30 have caused so much trouble" This is a chicken and egg situation. I have responded by rule breaking after each extreme example of poor behaviour by moderators. Moderator behaviour that can fall into several categories: Insults on the boards, obscene insults in response to emails sent to the setimods address, completely irrational deletions of my posts (ie as a response to me red Xing a post by mod and mod deleting posts in retaliation..or emailing setimods and having entire threads deleted in retaliation), false accusations and threats.

Secondly..I hope considering how many of your own posts have fallen below the standards you expect of other posters that someone is keeping an eye on you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I don't think anyone ever asked for rules. They just asked for some decent moderators that actually would respond to some of the extreme things that used to be posted on these forums.

Heh. And "moderators" is somehow different than "rules?"

But regardless, the problem has never been the "extreme things," (e.g. porn, overt threats, et cetera) because there are rational reasons those things aren't appropriate here. The problem has always been the differences of opinion as denounced by those that stoop to using the red x.

The ole "I-don't-think-it's-(insert your complaint here)funny-so-it-shouldn't-be-here" syndrome (BTW, What's the difference between Princess Diana and Casper the ghost? Casper can float through walls, Princess Diana can't.)

However..the admin don't really want to be dealing with it so tried to automate the mod appointment system which didn't actually take into account people skills or mental stability when it appointed the automods.

Any further automation of the mod process will only compound this problem.

Yep.

So the simple solution to the moderation problem is not the policy or any thing a computer program can solve. All that needs to be done is appoint mods who can actually do the job without ending up like a virtual versions of Pol-Pot.

They haven't struck me as having the wherewithal to make such decisions.

I would like to see the automod fiasco ended and a few of the previous mods reappointed as they have shown that they can moderate fairly and keep the respect of the majority of the posters.

Michael Buckingham and Knightmare spring to mind as I must say the boards were better with them as mods then they have been before or since.

They quit because they, by their own admission, couldn't handle it. That isn't a recipe for success.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I would like to see the automod fiasco ended and a few of the previous mods reappointed as they have shown that they can moderate fairly and keep the respect of the majority of the posters.

Michael Buckingham and Knightmare spring to mind as I must say the boards were better with them as mods then they have been before or since.

They quit because they, by their own admission, couldn't handle it. That isn't a recipe for success.

I think Rush we both know what they couldn't handle. And it wasn't the posters on the boards.

---

Reality Internet Personality

They quit because they, by their own admission, couldn't handle it. That isn't a recipe for success.

I think Rush we both know what they couldn't handle. And it wasn't the posters on the boards.

Ah, 'tis true. But like it or not, that's all part of the game. Either you can keep your emotions in check or you can't--whether that is in response to posters on the boards or in response to the watchers watching the watchers.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

They quit because they, by their own admission, couldn't handle it. That isn't a recipe for success.

I think Rush we both know what they couldn't handle. And it wasn't the posters on the boards.

Ah, 'tis true. But like it or not, that's all part of the game. Either you can keep your emotions in check or you can't--whether that is in response to posters on the boards or in response to the watchers watching the watchers.

Well I guess what you are saying is that you have to have the patience of a Saint to work with certain watchers. Well if Eric can appoint some Saints as mod I would feel much better. In the mean time we can only ask for better.

Again. I think Michael Buckingham and Knightmare did an excellent job. Whether either would want it back is another issue.

---

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.

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.)

There are some problems with meta moderation.

1) Underage viewing of some of the posts that were deemed not kid friendly.
2) Context. Sometimes an individual post may seem innocuous, but in the context of the other posts that were deleted the problem can be seen.

#2 can be worked around somehow. #1 is probably a show stopper.

---

BOINC WIKI

Ah, 'tis true. But like it or not, that's all part of the game. Either you can keep your emotions in check or you can't--whether that is in response to posters on the boards or in response to the watchers watching the watchers.

Well I guess what you are saying is that you have to have the patience of a Saint to work with certain watchers. Well if Eric can appoint some Saints as mod I would feel much better.

Maybe. I mean, I wouldn't give the stuff a second thought. I couldn't care less.

They're just Pixies, er pixels.

Again. I think Michael Buckingham and Knightmare did an excellent job. Whether either would want it back is another issue.

And others probably thought other mods that disagreed with MB and KM did/do an excellent job.

Dump the red x and ignore what they will then email about.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

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.)

There are some problems with meta moderation.

1) Underage viewing of some of the posts that were deemed not kid friendly.
2) Context. Sometimes an individual post may seem innocuous, but in the context of the other posts that were deleted the problem can be seen.

#2 can be worked around somehow. #1 is probably a show stopper.

Of course sometimes the context is purely imagined. There is little you can do if moderators become extremely paranoid.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Ah, 'tis true. But like it or not, that's all part of the game. Either you can keep your emotions in check or you can't--whether that is in response to posters on the boards or in response to the watchers watching the watchers.

Well I guess what you are saying is that you have to have the patience of a Saint to work with certain watchers. Well if Eric can appoint some Saints as mod I would feel much better.

Maybe. I mean, I wouldn't give the stuff a second thought. I couldn't care less.

They're just Pixies, er pixels.

Oh I stopped caring shortly after my birthday for some strange reason.

I would care again if something were done about what was done to me....but until then. I don't see why I should care. I can't respect people who support and collude with that sort of behaviour. I just can't.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Response to Qui-Gon's post:

Yes. I read what you said (Qui-Gon). I did not quote your email on the boards because I would have been modded for quoting a private email.

Really? Has this happened in the past? Can you give me an example?

Anyway, just be accurate in reporting what I said: don't put words in my mouth in order to score points.

First I take issue with the "30 have caused so much trouble" This is a chicken and egg situation. I have responded by rule breaking after each extreme example of poor behaviour by moderators. Moderator behaviour that can fall into several categories: Insults on the boards, obscene insults in response to emails sent to the setimods address, completely irrational deletions of my posts (ie as a response to me red Xing a post by mod and mod deleting posts in retaliation..or emailing setimods and having entire threads deleted in retaliation), false accusations and threats.

So you justify your (or your group's) behavior with the old "he hit me first" playground argument? Does that argument work with you?

Secondly..I hope considering how many of your own posts have fallen below the standards you expect of other posters that someone is keeping an eye on you.

Oh yes, people do keep an eye on my posts--I get modded all the time.

Response to Qui-Gon's post:

Yes. I read what you said (Qui-Gon). I did not quote your email on the boards because I would have been modded for quoting a private email.

Really? Has this happened in the past? Can you give me an example?

No I can't give you an example. I am not allowed to. Or shall I take your post as bait Qui-Gon?

First I take issue with the "30 have caused so much trouble" This is a chicken and egg situation. I have responded by rule breaking after each extreme example of poor behaviour by moderators. Moderator behaviour that can fall into several categories: Insults on the boards, obscene insults in response to emails sent to the setimods address, completely irrational deletions of my posts (ie as a response to me red Xing a post by mod and mod deleting posts in retaliation..or emailing setimods and having entire threads deleted in retaliation), false accusations and threats.

So you justify your (or your group's) behavior with the old "he hit me first" playground argument? Does that argument work with you?

Sorry..I am not allowed to discuss specific examples of poor moderation on the boards.

What I can say is that I did not join the 30 until after this happened.

Secondly..I hope considering how many of your own posts have fallen below the standards you expect of other posters that someone is keeping an eye on you.

Oh yes, people do keep an eye on my posts--I get modded all the time.

I bet you keep them busy.

---

Reality Internet Personality

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?

I do here. You still have the avenue of responding via e-mail, if you choose, for the time being.

---

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

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.)

I was merely responding to the quoted section that Richard posted.

So, who was closer to understanding Eric's post? (Made July 17, 2007, if I remember correctly?)

---

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

I don't think anyone ever asked for rules. They just asked for some decent moderators that actually would respond to some of the extreme things that used to be posted on these forums.

Heh. And "moderators" is somehow different than "rules?"

But regardless, the problem has never been the "extreme things," (e.g. porn, overt threats, et cetera) because there are rational reasons those things aren't appropriate here. The problem has always been the differences of opinion as denounced by those that stoop to using the red x.

Rush and his blame the red-X again? Why is it the red-X's fault? Becuz u sez so?
Oh, and I have difference of opinion with you about all big problems here being merely over difference of opinion. LOL.

However..the admin don't really want to be dealing with it so tried to automate the mod appointment system which didn't actually take into account people skills or mental stability when it appointed the automods.

Any further automation of the mod process will only compound this problem.

Yep.

We really still have some people that believe automods was truly automated?!? Please, Eric, step forward and tell us if it really was. C'mon. How incredibly coincidental was it that some of the ppl (who are either trouble makers or perceived as such, on both perceived sides to the issue lasting well over a YEAR) were made mods? Say what you will about Siran, folks, but the fact that he refused his "auto"mod appointment within days showed integrity. And, please, for the love of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't you EVER think of "auto"modding me, Eric. :)

Michael Buckingham and Knightmare spring to mind as I must say the boards were better with them as mods then they have been before or since.

They quit because they, by their own admission, couldn't handle it. That isn't a recipe for success.

Couldn't handle which part of it? Hmmm? Besides, I don't think "couldn't handle it" is quite the right term to use. However, it is unfortunately close enough, they quit and we're left with what we are left with.

---

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

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.)

There are some problems with meta moderation.

1) Underage viewing of some of the posts that were deemed not kid friendly.
2) Context. Sometimes an individual post may seem innocuous, but in the context of the other posts that were deleted the problem can be seen.

#2 can be worked around somehow. #1 is probably a show stopper.

Yes, John, there are things to consider. I think you made better points when you posted soon after Eric mentioned the idea. I also PMd from him regarding the pros and cons I saw, but never received a response. (I guess the one or two responses I received from him in June or so is about all I can expect.)

#1: there's no questions about it and what problems you foresee, I do not know.
Here's one I shared with Eric: if the idea is implemented, are we going to know who's post was hidden?; who hid it? THAT could lead to meta-moderation retaliations. Such info should be hidden. Even then, sometimes you can just tell who posted what and make a reasonable guess who hid it. Round and round we go, eh?

---

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

Rush and his blame the red-X again? Why is it the red-X's fault? Becuz u sez so?

The reasons have been presented to you. Did you wish to present an argument?

Oh, and I have difference of opinion with you about all big problems here being merely over difference of opinion. LOL.

Duly noted.

Say what you will about Siran, folks, but the fact that he refused his "auto"mod appointment within days showed integrity.

Integrity would have been refusing it instantly. Not playing with it a while until what was already obvious became hideously, painfully, obvious.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush and his blame the red-X again? Why is it the red-X's fault? Becuz u sez so?

The reasons have been presented to you. Did you wish to present an argument?

Then please present your reasons, with evidence, again, please. Because I do not remember a full-blown proof that that's the main cause of all our problems.

Say what you will about Siran, folks, but the fact that he refused his "auto"mod appointment within days showed integrity.

Integrity would have been refusing it instantly. Not playing with it a while until what was already obvious became hideously, painfully, obvious.

My understanding was that he had not been posting, never used mod powers, and when he saw the e-mail from Eric, he came back, posted something along the lines of "What the heck? I'm a mod now?!?" (Or, he never saw the mail, posted, looked at his post and saw the mod tag.) Immediately, people ganged up on him, primarily folks from SETI.USA whom I had hardly seen post in the Cafe. Within about a day, Siran's tag was gone. Again, it is my understanding that he never took any actions as a moderator.

---

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

As I have reminded people recently, I was autobanned for excessive thread creation September 26, 2006 --- the day the BOTD debate boiled over and Matt L. asked us if the Cafe needed to die. (After seeing that logic and offering pros and cons no one else had, or just saying aye or nay to certain points, was futile, I tried to inject humor into the Cafe, made a lot of threads to do so and ... bam ... banned.)

Funny, you say: "Oh, and I have difference of opinion with you about all big problems here being merely over difference of opinion," and yet, here was a difference of opinion that resulted in your being banned.

Not because you posted an overt threat, not because you posted porn, but because it was someone's opinion that your transgression was sufficient to ban you. 100 bucks says there were a bunch of red x's that day: "Sarge is creating too many threads!! Sarge is creating too many threads!!"

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...