Do we want a Community run/owned forum “in spirit” or would we rather that be “in fact”?

I’m glad that the mods work hard to help the community (and for free!) but I’m also for lateral freedom of speech equally for everyone (i even think “spam” should be allowed here, just tagged maybe? And ppl could elect not to see certain tagged things) and I’ve had some friction with the mods about a few posts etc that I’ve not been able to solve with them. But they are attentive and make themselves accessible. But it was disappointing to not be able to reach agreements.

Just wanted to say @Al_Kafir isn’t the only one who has expressed feelings of friction and don’t want him to feel alone or be told he is. I see both sides is all

2 Likes

@ moderators is the place to go. We always read your PM and we always talk about it with mods and reply. Sure we can fix most of what you point out. But we seriously need a PM with an explanation etc.

If you would only ask one mod, then he or she has to explain your case to the other mods. It’s better when you do that, because you know what the case is and why you bring it up.

2 Likes

@ moderators is the place to go if you don’t agree with things we’ve done. When we get a PM we always read it and we always reply. It’s actually one of our “jobs” to respond to PM’s.

1 Like

OK, fine thanks for illustrating the accountability issue.[quote=“polpolrene, post:15, topic:6691”]
But we seriously need a PM with an explanation etc.

If you would only ask one mod, then he or she has to explain your case to the other mods. It’s better when you do that, because you know what the case is and why you bring it up.
[/quote]
Would you not achieve the same goal only more transparently by requesting users use the @ moderarors thing within the thread where the problem is to attract their attention to exactly the right part of any thread and the nature and circumstances could easily be established - the matter could be dealt with more openly, even if in a linked off-topic area for “mod decisions”. Or you could keep doing things behind closed doors. :smile:
Edit:
His point was that you brought this partly upon yourself.
[/quote]

No, he said maybe I did and I said maybe I didn’t. Neither of us are making any points…just suggestions/opinion. It’s like saying " maybe you’re wrong" and me replying “maybe I’m right”…literally totally pointless…without a point.[quote=“Cryptor, post:12, topic:6691”]
…Not going to read the rest of your mental masturbation.
[/quote]
Good…I prefer to do it in private… :smile:

That’s an option but that doesn’t fit all situations. When 2 people get into a personal flame war where 1 says that the other is a @#%&@ and the other replies that he and his mom both are &#&#&# we just delete both replies. Especially if that topic is about self_encryption or routing :yum:. I don’t really see why we would reply in-topic saying: “there was a personal flame-war going on here, we removed 4 replies from @userA and @userB. Use @ moderators if you don’t agree or want to comment.” It’s an extreme example but we’ve seen it. The reason most users don’t see it is because we acts quite fast on these issues. That’s also an explanation for why mods have the right to delete whatever they want (as you know is in the FG). We don’t just do that, we always reach consensus. But when the case is clear like this example there’s not really the need to have a meeting on Slack and talk about it. Same for spam accounts. We see several of them in a week. I see a lot of “Deleted another spam account” coming by on Slack. Most of them don’t even exist for an hour is my guess.

And for other issues feel free to use @ moderators in META. We’re already there on a daily basis so we do notice. But again, not all issues fit to be public and open etc. If I go on a cryptoforum somewhere and I get one of my posts deleted I would just PM the mods. If they don’t come up with a good explanation I would look for META and make my case there. But to be honest, we’ve set back some topics or replies when we had an error. And the fastest way to trigger a reply is by @ moderators. Some of us get a ping on their phones (freaks! :grinning:) when that happens.

I really agree on this one. I also think it’s quite hard to let the forum be really owned by the whole community. Where do we draw the line, 1 person that get’s in contact with discourse when we have a technical issue, or maybe 2 persons? Or do we give 15 people the contact details to contact Discourse? And what about Admin rights. Do we need like 15 admins? And do we want them to vote on each action? Quite not doable IMO. So we have both @frabrunelle (who got a lot of support for being both mod and admin) and @ioptio who is working for Maidsafe (who pays the bills). Same for the URL and the certificates etc. If we allow 20 people to alter them it would just take 1 fool to kill the URL and link it to disney.com. We’d better be careful.

I agree. We have almost 1800 users. So when we vote on anything, how do we count? Do we want x out of 1800 to agree on an issue? Today we’ve had 109 users online. yesterday 139. That’s like 250 in 2 days. So let’s say we vote on a new mod. @satoshinakamoto offered to be a mod. We open a vote, when do we have consensus? 20? 40? half of the 1800? It would take weeks and we wouldn’t get a clear picture IMO. That way it is “democratic” but not really democratic because not even 25% of all members did a vote. I did ask a very open question about splitting topics. And we didn’t had a clear picture either:

Should we split topics that have a lot of replies?

Same for a poll
. We had (I think) like 1500 users at that time. We got 99 votes. So 6,6% of the users actually made a vote. Yes good feature said 35%. No bad feature said 35% :joy:. So again, where do we draw a line? Even if 90% voted for “Yes, good feature” it was still lower than 7% of all members that made a vote. Where’s the democracy in that one?

Being a fully 100% democratic organisation is not that easy. At least, not on a forum where not all users are around all days. I do hope we can have something close when Safenet is live. Maybe an app could send some PM’s to user that have at least 20 active posts/replies over the last 6 months, and are member of the forum for over 6 months etc. That way it should be possible using PM’s on Safenet where you get a message asking you to vote on 1 or 2 topics.

So we shouldn’t do it because it doesn’t apply in a “flame war” situation - is that the top and bottom of your argument? Just so I’m sure, your argument is that sometimes mods have to act quickly to remove posts, so somehow this means it can’t be done more transparently?
OK, I think I grasp the point being made but not sure…a flame war is people trolling each other isn’t it - distinct from a heated debate perhaps, maybe involving personal attacks and other breaking of guidelines etc? The posts would essentially have been removed for breaking rules - as with any other case. This "flaming case"is (as you freely admit) also the “extreme” case, that you chose to use to put the argument against. It doesn’t appear in principle to be any different from any other case.[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6691”]
That’s also an explanation for why mods have the right to delete whatever they want
[/quote]
Ah…I see, you’re answering something different to what was proposed again - mods deleting posts wasn’t the issue. Lol, gotta love that quote though…nah, that’s not the reason.[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6691”]
(as you know is in the FG)
[/quote]
As with all other “rights” the mods have, they have given them to themselves in the Forum Guidelines that they also wrote themselves.[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6691”]
But when the case is clear like this example there’s not really the need to have a meeting on Slack and talk about it.
[/quote]
I’m sorry but I really have no idea who suggested more mod huddles on Slack as a solution - quite the opposite. [quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6691”]
And for other issues feel free to use @ moderators in META.
[/quote]
Yeah, been there done that, told you multiple times that not doing it anymore, yet you keep repeating this to me - is this what causes flame wars? Because of my dissatisfaction with these systems I started this thread which you seem unable to remain on topic with. Why just keep repeating use @ moderators all the time?

Sorry, some of following quotes are Fabrunelle, not polpolrene (just took from polpolrenes post)

We don’t draw lines, we just go as far as possible in that direction and in every aspect.[quote=“polpolrene, post:19, topic:6691”]
There is no single owner.
[/quote]
There is not just 1 name as the registered “owner” ? Just that if it is, then it wouldn’t matter whether…[quote=“polpolrene, post:19, topic:6691”]
we don’t feel like the forum belongs to us
[/quote]
Because it would. Lol, just got to say that being told it is not “felt” like it is owned by an individual and the Community are told they own it “in spirit”…it doesn’t really clarify anything. [quote=“polpolrene, post:19, topic:6691”]
Do we need like 15 admins?
[/quote]
I don’t understand where you are going with all this or who suggested any such things. “Owning” and “operating” a forum are different things. The only point was that the registered “owner” would be a group not an individual.

If you read my post carefully you’ll actually see that I agreed with you that people can call for @ moderators in a topic instead of sending a PM. Here it is:

The only thing I said was that it doesn’t fits all cases.

Why so offensive, I just told you I agreed with your idea to call for mods in a topic instead of sending them a PM in some cases. It’s perfectly on-topic.

How? I laid out some serious issues with the idea that a whole community own a forum/URL etc. Would be great if you address them instead of saying that you just want to go as far as possible. So easy to say: “I’m gonna create world peace in 15 years”. Someone would ask me “how?” And I would reply with: “we just go as far as possible in that direction and in every aspect.”. That’s not really coming up with a proposal, but more like coming up with just an idea. I think I know a number of ideas that way.

Again, I laid out some serious problems with this approach. I’ve seen no answer or solution whatsoever. Same for the “let’s make this a 100% democratic forum” idea. Or this one:

I showed you in one reply here that we actually had polls/votes and that not even 7% of all members voted. No democracy there. Would be great if you could address these issues that I’ve raised concerning your OP. Otherwise you are just coming up with ideas (and that’s fine) but not actual proposals.

Currently, a handful of people decide who becomes a mod and inherits the very special powers and authority over the much larger Community. These powers can potentially impact freedom of speech, shut down dissenting voices, steer the direction of the forum politically etc. Because of this, it is important that systems are as transparent and as accountable and involving of the larger community as possible.
The current system is open to abuse……now……and needs changing asap in my view.
Yes, we should thank the early mods/admins etc for birthing the modding system and giving us a live baby……the time has just come for its inoculations against viruses and systemic diseases. Too many issues are being conflated here and too much emotion.
It has been recognised by Fabrunelle that the system should be made more transparent and accountable, even if others do not……he appears to just want to postpone things until either after launch or at a time after that when the forum has over a certain amount of users. I think this is the only question left really….what is the timeline for the transfer to a more accountable/inclusive/transparent system and what should it look like? This is why we need other ideas from the community around these ideas for potential improvements.
Thinking about it, I really do feel this is a pressing need and should be done sooner, rather than later. This is the topic to explore/debate the relative merits of delaying or implementing asap. :smile:

This whole debacle about modding came about following a comment by Happybeing explaining how a recent crop of mods had been chosen by existing mods. When questioned about why there was no Community inclusion in this process, the explanation given by Happybeing was that no direction was given by either Maidsafe or the Community, so he (maybe with others) chose who was to be a mod themselves. Happybeing said he was happy to take responsibility for everything that occurred from this point, (which suggests it was his decision alone– otherwise why take responsibility).
This is the point at which my argument begins and pertains to. It is clear I think, that mods claims that I am singling out 1 person unfairly is false, as he has taken responsibility for it himself.
I would argue that the Community should have been consulted at this point on how to best recruit mods – not just go ahead and do it.
This debate had become very contentious and a number of complaints have been made from users concerning this and other modding issues with some proposing reform.
The Meta category was taken from the front page during such a heated debate. The reasoning given by mods was that in their opinion it was a distraction to users and the Category was now seen as less relevant to the Safe Network than anything else.
Understandably, (among this particular freedom of speech loving, anti-authoritarian Community) I think, this action raised a few eyebrows and turned up the heat. Once my eyebrows had returned to the front of my head, I saw this action as misguided and not thought through politically or from a PR point of view really, I saw it as a mistake – it left an understandable impression that need not have been left (just my opinion). If you look at it in political terms, there were 2 opposing camps about how forum governance should be run. Effectively, all arguments against the current incumbent mod regime would henceforth be given less prominence and the arguments heard by fewer people – fact.
There have since been a number of incidents of mods moving posts critical of modding to off-topic. This has been complained about by more than myself (as the mods know full well, despite constantly trying to reduce this issue to just myself complaining). In fact my recent suspension was started by a new user complaining about the same thing. This was initially denied by mods and I was told to get my “facts straight” and stop repeating falsehoods – this was despite clear evidence that it happened, though this was just brushed over. Again, it gives a bad impression, an impression that mods have no right to complain about people being left with – they created it, it’s a result of their seemingly authoritarian actions. You can’t complain about a reputation……it’s a result of your deeds.
Anyway, we’ve now had suspensions of users arguing against the current system and the constant repetitive claim that the system has around 99% support (we are making a fuss of nothing). Supporting “evidence” for this has been offered in the form of “likes” given to some threads on the main page – highly dubious in itself as there is no “dislike” button….how come the likes figures aren’t taken from the views figures then by the same flawed reasoning all those viewing but not liking must therefore dislike it? It also completely ignores the fact that this whole line of argument is completely undermined by the fact that the opposing “party” and argument does not have the same audience/prominence due to the previous mod action of removing Meta.
So, anyway, scooting forward to today, I have been trying to look at ways to make the modding more transparent/accountable to community etc. I am now told that this is something that could be addressed after launch……maybe. The reasoning is that it would be a distraction to Devs, not enough people on forum etc – I think this may need exploring a bit further though. Is continuing like this less of a distraction and what do devs have to do with modding in any case. All they have to do is not read Meta….lol….its not on the front page.
I am also told that I would need maybe 20 people to support reforming the modding system to be able to effect change. The place to do this is the Meta category, which reduces the chances massively though due to mod actions………this leaves an impression. :smile:

I’ve read the intro only as I don’t have time for this. You paint a picture, that to my recollection is again inaccurate - it’s how you recall it, how you see it, but I differ. Perhaps if you would provide links, we should all be able to see what actually happened and judge for ourselves, and you would not then find others correcting you, at length, which you then regard as “spamming” or “off-topic”.

Again, I ask you to clearly make a proposal for the changes you want, we’ll pin it on the front page for everyone to see and discuss, and it can be put to a vote.

Until you do that, you can expect to be debated, and corrected, as part of a community, not all of whom agree with you, and in my own case have different recollection the things you keep reporting as fact.

Final warning for spreading this nonsense @Al_Kafir. @polpolrene has responded to this lie multiple times with the links that showed the truth but you seem to dismiss those and continue to attack us with this lie.

Offensive? What in anything I said could possibly be described as “offensive”.[quote=", post:22, topic:6691"]
Yeah, been there done that, told you multiple times that not doing it anymore, yet you keep repeating this to me - is this what causes flame wars? Because of my dissatisfaction with these systems I started this thread which you seem unable to remain on topic with. Why just keep repeating use @ moderators all the time?
[/quote]

Please circle the part, discuss with your colleagues, give it due consideration, reach consensus etc…lol

Another false accusation, as explained here:

He is not the only one who recognises that there are areas that may be improved. What is needed is actual changes, not just pointing out potential deficiencies. I would welcome constructive changes to be presented (As a member and as a mod)

Honestly, not as a mod, but a person, all I’ve seen is mud throwing, and occasionally a good idea in there. How can anyone action your concerns, the concerns are pointing out what you view as faults and very little willingness to discuss those things. Dunno if I am the only one, but for months I have been waiting for a suggestion of actual changes to be made by yourself or others.

2 Likes

Here we go again… You just don’t get it.

This is my personal opinion (I am not trying to explain the official position):

  • You still have your freedom of speech, but not on other people’s property (and every web site is a property of its owner(s))
  • It isn’t important that systems involve the community (the old “inclusiveness” nonsense), but that they’re private, so that there is always the opportunity for a better one to be set up, if management of currently dominant communities doesn’t fulfill the needs of certain community members

Maybe yes, maybe no, but it’s related to modding, not to what forum participants (99% of whom haven’t been modded) care about. So it’s completely understandable that few people care about this.
As one of few people who have been modded and officially warned on more than one occasion, I may have certain opinions about the quality of modding myself. Once I think I posted in #meta about it, but that’s as far as that goes.
You did that more than once and you’re still not happy, so why not start a new community?

On this site, yes. But you can start a new site today and implement a better moderation policy before end of day today.

You made your points, you did that more than once and you got nowhere with that. Maybe it’s time to stop talking and get to work?

3 Likes

Would anybody else like to interject at this point who have had experience of this. I know that I myself have and that the new user @Natalie_Bertoncello also had the same experience prior to my suspension. I believe @Warren also had posts critical of modding removed. I do not tell lies and moving my posts around and continuing with these accusations of lying to a long standing community member is totally unacceptable. Although it will do yourselves no favours whatsoever, I fully expect you to remove this legitimate defense of the false accusation and further suspend me. Well done guys… :smile:

Asking for a full community consensus but you’re expecting to be treated differently because you’ve registered a username before others did? You do tell lies and they have been pointed out about ten times already.

lol…OK…I’m going to investigate this further, because I know I don’t tell lies. Going back to the time of suspension, the mods definitely 100% lied when they claimed I said that posts were removed FOR being critical…if not moved to off-topic, then either deleted or moved from front page anyway. However, I can assure you I do not lie, but will own up to any mistake I may have made in this regard.
Will mods do the same for my counter accusation of lying?
Edit:
OK,….lol….I have no idea how to set about investigating this. Because of this, I am at the mercy of somebody coming to my rescue to whom this has also happened. Because of this, I will have to retract the claim that critical posts were moved to off-topic (unless some white knight comes riding by). I obviously do not however admit to deliberately lying – that is a step too far and the accusation crosses the line. People can make mistakes without intentionally lying. Anyway, I will not repeat until such a time as more information is available to support the claim and concede I may have been mistaken.
OK, in my defence, I was intending to make the larger point that posts were moved away from main page, given less prominence, moved to off-topic or deleted. As the Meta category is away from front page, it is also treated as off-topic, in that people have to search for it, it has a smaller audience. A whole swathe of posts that were critical of modding were moved to a less prominent position, treated as off-topic when Meta was moved. That was the larger point I was making.
Yes, you got a bit of a punch in there (unless rescued), I should have checked first, my error and I concede the lesser charge of being mistaken, won’t repeat until sure, but as I say, I did not and do not deliberately lie. I should have just said “moved to a less prominent position”, but I didn’t, so yes, I’ll give you that one. :smile:
Edit
You also seemed to omit to answer the “offensive” question, so now if you could just justify the final warning and expand on the accusations of me being an offensive liar, then I would appreciate it. .