I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

Group? I thought that the only group was 'that group'; some group that certain moderators bang on about, which has no named members, but are the cause of all the trouble in the SETI Café. It can't include me because I know of no such group, I was never here what 'that group' was allegedly formed. But I have specifically named names to the setimods, and earned some stripes from them I think, ho ho.

---

flaming balloons

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

No, that is not true, and you know it. Unfortunately, the moderators are muzzled by the rules, and cannot discuss this on the boards, so the choice is to either leave bald statements like this showing, or just delete them.

---

BOINC WIKI

Thorin

While being new and watching what is coming and going in the setimod mailing list and this Forum Thread... I see one thing that you have pointed that might help improve things.
As I can catch Eric will make a recommendation.

In the mean time people are busy attempting to keep some kind of order.

Pappa

Well, I made some complaints, for example. I even used the red X on inappropriate posts. And you (and even the ex mods among the participants in this thread) may remember that I responded to almost all of the forum moderation notices sent to me; mostly agreeing, sometimes asking if I could re-post something without the moderated quotation (when I was moderated because of quoting stuff later deleted), sometimes even questioning decisions. Fine with me. But I expected more replies to my responds than I actually got...

I would like to see certain mods stop using the mod list as a propaganda tool.

I would like to see this thread not used as a propaganda tool. Moderators are selectively hiding posts they want to censor, leaving others out of kilter and discussion fractured due to the censorship.

The problem is that users cannot seem to follow the rules. No discussion of particular episodes. This is still a firm rule, even in this thread. The moderators cannot discuss them because of the rules they operate under so the choice is to leave those posts hanging as flame bait, or just delete them.

---

BOINC WIKI

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

Group? I thought that the only group was 'that group'; some group that certain moderators bang on about, which has no named members, but are the cause of all the trouble in the SETI Café. It can't include me because I know of no such group, I was never here what 'that group' was allegedly formed. But I have specifically named names to the setimods, and earned some stripes from them I think, ho ho.

There are some users that cannot seem to follow the rules or keep testing the edges, and these are the ones that constantly have their posts deleted.

---

BOINC WIKI

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

No, that is not true, and you know it. Unfortunately, the moderators are muzzled by the rules, and cannot discuss this on the boards, so the choice is to either leave bald statements like this showing, or just delete them.

It's difficult to know how we can have reasoned debate. I can only surmise that "the rules" are your excuse to make sure that no open, honest, reasoned debate can take place here.

---

flaming balloons

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

No, that is not true, and you know it. Unfortunately, the moderators are muzzled by the rules, and cannot discuss this on the boards, so the choice is to either leave bald statements like this showing, or just delete them.

This is just because the mods don't want examples, they only accept fluffy blahblah about general issues, and as soon as it gets real they hide behind some ridiculous "rule" that forbids any real discussion of certain issues.

And the alwas mentioned "proper way of talk due the setimods email list" is no real way, as it's only a one-way street. It's not an open dicussion about the obvious deeds by certain mods but it's done to hide this very discussion to keep the surface cleen.

I still havn't got an answer to my question:

How can we discuss this if any example is asap deleted?

edit:
And worse, even my very fluffy remarks without any names in it are perhaps too far to the core of this issue to be left in the open, at least this seems to be a real option, if I read your comment right, JM7

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

No, that is not true, and you know it. Unfortunately, the moderators are muzzled by the rules, and cannot discuss this on the boards, so the choice is to either leave bald statements like this showing, or just delete them.

It's difficult to know how we can have reasoned debate. I can only surmise that "the rules" are your excuse to make sure that no open, honest, reasoned debate can take place here.

No, the rules are set for us by the administrators. How can there be an honest reasoned debate about a particular action when one side cannot speak on it? Please answer that. It should be possible to discuss policy with out discussing particular actions.

---

BOINC WIKI

No, the rules are set for us by the administrators. How can there be an honest reasoned debate about a particular action when one side cannot speak on it? Please answer that. It should be possible to discuss policy with out discussing particular actions.

Yep, that's right.
That's the problem with the "discussion" over the setimods email:
How can there be an honest reasoned debate about a particular action when one side cannot speak on it? And this one side that's muzzled is not the in-group in the modlist.

Edit:
And the problem is not the general policy, the problem are certain mods with their own private agenda (and no, it's not you JM7).

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

No, that is not true, and you know it. Unfortunately, the moderators are muzzled by the rules, and cannot discuss this on the boards, so the choice is to either leave bald statements like this showing, or just delete them.

Actually..i was not banned for making the moderators email public. I only did that after I was banned.

I was banned for saying that someone on the boards was bullying me and I did not even say that persons name or say they were a moderator and I was asking whether I should give up and quit seti.

When that thread was deleted I created 1 spam thread and then was banned for 'spamming the boards'

There is no recourse for complaints about our treatment at the hands of the moderators.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Dear John McLeod. I can imagine how you struggle to host this thread. I suppose on one side you understand the position of some of the users posting here and wish these posts to remain here, on the other side you have to follow the rules and the "team spirit" (if this is the right word) to not get into trouble. I can understand your dilemma.

We all know that there must be (or have been) personal differences among the mods else several of the good mods wouldn't have left the team voluntarily. And I also know that some more are pondering about resigning because of mod-intern reasons. But what I can't understand is why the entire mod list allowed the good ones to resign instead of doing something against those ones who made them resign.

---

Account frozen...

No, the rules are set for us by the administrators. How can there be an honest reasoned debate about a particular action when one side cannot speak on it? Please answer that. It should be possible to discuss policy with out discussing particular actions.

Yep, that's right.
That's the problem with the "discussion" over the setimods email:
How can there be an honest reasoned debate about a particular action when one side cannot speak on it? And this one side that's muzzled is not the in-group in the modlist.

You have a method for starting a discussion with the moderators - it is the moderator email list. Both sides can be a part of the discussion there. The moderators are not allowed to discuss moderator actions on the message boards. Therefore, it seems that the only place where there can be a reasoned discussion about a particular moderator action is on the moderators email list.

The administrators imposed this rule with the comment that discussions of particular actions on the message boards always seem to end in flames.

---

BOINC WIKI

You have a method for starting a discussion with the moderators - it is the moderator email list. Both sides can be a part of the discussion there.

I've never recieved a link to the email list to participate in this discussion.

It's a one-way street: I give some input, it may be discussed, sometimes I even get answers (THX to you btw. for your answers), but no discussion and certainly no participation of the modded users.

I know that some of the good mods left out of frustration, but the bad apples, the cause to the problems here, still are mods.

One hundredth post.

<snicker, snicker>

OK

<insert words> "moderation policy" so as to be on topic

LOL

---

You have a method for starting a discussion with the moderators - it is the moderator email list. Both sides can be a part of the discussion there.

I've never recieved a link to the email list to participate in this discussion.

It's a one-way street: I give some input, it may be discussed, sometimes I even get answers (THX to you btw. for your answers), but no discussion and certainly no participation of the modded users.

I know that some of the good mods left out of frustration, but the bad apples, the cause to the problems here, still are mods.

I made the same comment yesterday and got it deleted...go figure. So much for an open discussion.

---

Account frozen...

I made the same comment yesterday and got it deleted...go figure. So much for an open discussion.

It is clear to me that some members are targeted by certain moderators at whim of the moderators. Not because of rules. Not because of moderation policy. Simply due to the whim of certain moderators who may hold a grudge, have had a bad day, or simply do not know when it is appropriate to hide a post. And then they use a stock reason to apply to the hide, which is nothing to do with their real reason.

And what happens when a member goes to setimods to complain at this unjust action? Don't tell me. I know exactly what happens.

---

flaming balloons

There are some users that cannot seem to follow the rules or keep testing the edges, and these are the ones that constantly have their posts deleted.

Q. for John McCloud VII - IF what you have stated above - 'is true' - then why would certain Threads / Comments of Mine - that have been deleted etc . . .

when i have NOT "tested the edges, plus i have followed the Rules" (those that are in Writing and available to us to read. ??

richard

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Okay

I will try this one, If I were to look at from just the rules (other than we are trying to clear the aire here a bit). My instinct would be this particular post is inciting a bit of flamming... My thought would be to remove it and any posts that would quote from it. That is the policy.

Now, With things going on many moderators have attempted to let you say and as long as it not to far over the line use it for the discussion.

So I have to ask those that have an opinion, should this post stay and what part of Policy does it Violate and why...

Keep it Nice!

Pappa

This thread is going to be borderline pretty much througout. Exactly where the edge is can be a bit blurry at times, and moderators do disagree and discuss. There are things that are clearly off limits, and there there things that are clearly OK. Then there are posts that are borderline, and these always seem to require some discussion among the moderators....

Yes...I think I have the new rules..if a post is borderline moderators may discuss it..unless that post is by me, in which case it is deleted even if another poster has said something far stronger and more specific earlier.

If a post by me is also polite and relevant...but cannot be thought of as borderline, then the mods can also delete it as off topic.

If there is a straight forward post or thread by me, the moderators can also make up a conspiracy about it and then use that as an excuse to delete it and threaten bannings.

Have I got it right so far?

I feel so special.

Once a post has been deleted...it then falls under the remit of 'discussing moderation' and can no longer be treated as if it even existed. Discussion of said post can lead to further deletions and threats of bannings.

In other words...once the mods have acted there is very little you can do or say about it. Even if they have had to make up reasons to moderate your posts or threads because they don't like you.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Here you define a problem that was resolved. You say there is no recourse, but do not tell the whole story. Every email on the setimod list ends up in Eric and Matts inbox... If the mods can not give you an answer then you can write them directly. It will probably take some time but you should get the answer.

I was once banned because I made the spamming spree of one of the mods public.
Esme was banned because she made the disgusting mail she recieved from one of the mods public.

I see a pattern there, it came from the same group within the mod-list.

No, that is not true, and you know it. Unfortunately, the moderators are muzzled by the rules, and cannot discuss this on the boards, so the choice is to either leave bald statements like this showing, or just delete them.

Actually..i was not banned for making the moderators email public. I only did that after I was banned.

I was banned for saying that someone on the boards was bullying me and I did not even say that persons name or say they were a moderator and I was asking whether I should give up and quit seti.

When that thread was deleted I created 1 spam thread and then was banned for 'spamming the boards'

There is no recourse for complaints about our treatment at the hands of the moderators.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

It violates the "rule" not to discuss moderation.
That's what it's all about, that's what this whole thread is about.
It's as well the core of my often asker question, how can moderation policy be discussed if the mentioning of examples is enough to delete the posts?

The content of the post is the percieved reality as seen by Esme, and a reality that's seen this way by a lot of other crunchers (including me) as well, it's obviously different to the reality as seem by some mods. I agree it's a bit sarcstic, but I don't see the rule "no sarcasm" anywhere.