If freedom of speech is what you guys are promoting why are you trying to hide my post? Perhaps a de-centralized internet has it's downsides afterall


#18

Yes you did, here it is. Want a screenshot as well??

I fully understand your chagrin at having some of your critical posts unnecessarily moved to off-topic - it is something that has happened to others and been a cause for concern/complaint to others too - as you say it doesn’t give a good impression and has freedom of speech implications…ironic as you say. :smile:

And the user you replied to doesn’t have ANY posts in off-topic. I just checked that again. Not a single one. This was the case way before you made this reply. So you made false accusations, wasn’t posting in the right topic and replied to facts that weren’t and still aren’t true. It was already sorted out hours before your reply as you can see in this topic.


#19

A screenshot doesn’t help - an explanation would be better…I know what I said…lol[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6516”]
I fully understand your chagrin at having some of your critical posts unnecessarily moved to off-topic
[/quote]
OK, let’s break it down for you. Where in this statement did I state that the “critical posts” were removed for being “critical”? It was also “unnecessary” as I correctly pointed out - unless of course you are arguing that moving to off-topic, prior to moving to Meta was a “necessary” step.[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6516”]
And the user you replied to doesn’t have ANY posts in off-topic. I just checked that again. Not a single one.
[/quote]
Not grasping your point again tbh. I can’t be arsed checking, but wasn’t it stated that they were moved to off-topic as a temporary measure, prior to moving to Meta (which is treated the same as off-topic in any case).[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6516”]
So you made false accusations
[/quote]
No…you did… :smile:[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6516”]
wasn’t posting in the right topic
[/quote]
Eh? I was replying directly to somebody…what you on about?[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6516”]
and replied to facts that weren’t and still aren’t true
[/quote]
What does this even mean? If I replied to an untrue “fact” (eh?.. :slightly_smiling:) in what way shape or form is that any kind of “offence” - I’m replying to somebody else’s untrue fact…lol[quote=“polpolrene, post:18, topic:6516”]
It was already sorted out hours before your reply as you can see in this topic.
[/quote]
What you on about - I replied to another user in a thread - what exactly is your problem here? No wonder you want to argue with me in side rooms… :smile:


#20

You state “it happened to others before” while talking about “some of your critical posts”. In other words, you say that some of her posts were moved off-topic for being critical. As I pointed out this is 100% not true. One post was moved temporarily to off-topic because it wasn’t clear in what category it should be. The right category was already found hours before your reply. You’re also talking about posts (multiple). Which implies several of her posts where moved to off-topic. Again, this is a false statement. As I pointed out, the user has no posts or replies in the “off-topic” category.

Your statement also implies that mods move topics to “off-topic” for being critical (“has happened to others” as you say). Which again is a false statement. You say that some of his posts could be interpreted as “trolling” but as you can see all the posts by this user are still there, which shows that we don’t move critical posts to off-topic for being critical.

I’m not surprised.

I’m done with this discussion. For any concerns use @ moderators


Do we want a Community run/owned forum “in spirit” or would we rather that be “in fact”?
#21

Oooooo…what’s with the red text background…lol
In “other words”…bollocks…again, I said no such thing. Other words are other words - other than what I used you mean?
Yes, I said that it had happened to others - critical posts had been removed before which was a cause for concern for others - true fact (as opposed to an untrue fact… :smile: )[quote=“polpolrene, post:20, topic:6516”]
The right category was already found hours before your reply.
[/quote]
Yeah…well done boys…you got there eventually…still no idea what your point is - I was replying directly to another user and not paying attention to all the mod musical chairs goings on. I don’t even think it was mentioned on the thread that posts had been removed…may be wrong here, so not claiming anything.[quote=“polpolrene, post:20, topic:6516”]
You’re also talking about posts (multiple). Which implies several of his posts where moved to off-topic.
[/quote]
No - I was REPLYING to the person talking about “posts” (multiple). Are you really saying that I should somehow find which cupboard the mods have moved posts to, to check whether the person I was replying to meant “post” singular as opposed to posts (multiple).

No, again it is you making all the false accusations and statements and really scraping the bottom of the barrel in your ridiculous arguments.[quote=“polpolrene, post:20, topic:6516”]
As I pointed out, the user has no posts or replies in the “off-topic” category.
[/quote]
And?..We all know that - they were placed there temporarily, as has already been stated. What is your point?[quote=“polpolrene, post:20, topic:6516”]
Your statement also implies that mods move topics to “off-topic” for being critical (“has happened to others” as you say). Which again is a false statement.
[/quote]
Again, No…this itself is a false statement - it is a FACT that critical posts have been moved to off-topic - whether this was done BECAUSE they were critical is a completely different question and not one that I commented on either way.
You just continue with your straw man, dishonest arguments…it really is very obvious.[quote=“polpolrene, post:20, topic:6516”]
which shows that we don’t move critical posts to off-topic for being critical.
[/quote]
No, it doesn’t show that whatsoever. It shows you didn’t remove those particular comments for being critical. Again - a false conclusion… :smile:[quote=“polpolrene, post:20, topic:6516”]
For any concerns use @ moderators
[/quote]
Not a chance…lol…why on Earth would I raise concerns about a self organising “Tufty club” that believes it has the right to judge and moderate others to the Tufty club itself? You’re all just members of the Community who have pinned badges on themselves…you have absolutely no legitimacy for the positions you hold and I’ll take as much notice of you as you do me - your badge means sod all… :smile:


#22

As I can see whether or not the post was moved to marketing or not it was first moved to off-topic as evidenced by the following posts.

Also deleting @Al_Kafir 's post only confuses the issue as it prevents the sequence of events from being properly recorded and quoted. Seeing as these events are actively in dispute and being discussed I see that as bad moderation and seeing as @Melvin is actively in conflict with @Al_Kafir in this matter I see that as conflict of interest. If a sequence of events is being discussed you don’t delete the posts in question and tamper with the evidence.

Opinion spamming? Good grief. If one believes in something of course one is going to raise the point in multiple venues. If that’s actually in the guidelines it needs to be challenged.

@Al_Kafir was replying to another user whom had had her post moved to off-topic. Whether or not her post was later moved to Marketing or whatever the proper category might be is irrelevant because it doesn’t affect the time at which Al Kafir’s post was made and to whom it was replying. How can you accuse him of falsely accusing a mod of moving the post when the evidence is right there? And he’s hardly making a big issue of it in he first place just remarking that it’s happened to others and showing a bit of empathy. Yet we’ve got 2 mods in here making a huge deal of this, misconstruing data, deleting posts, and further confusing the issue. All of this to save face. Because all of this is largely unnessesary from a moderation standpoint.

The user in question doesn’t have any posts in off-topic NOW because they were MOVED to the correct topic. That is not to say they DIDN’T have any posts in off-topic, as evidenced by quotes, when Al Kafir’s post was made.

If a mod doesn’t know where to put something they should leave it alone and discuss with other mods in PM where it should go before moving it. Off-topic is not an end all junk heap to stick your odds and ends until you find a home for them. Besides to do so, as we’ve seen, is confusing for new users.

You know you could have avoided this whole mess by instead of saying Al Kafir sounded like a troll and breaking out the mod hammer of doom you could have just said to the newbie “Don’t worry it’s just temporary until we find your post a new home. :smile:” Or something like that. Keep it light and friendly all round. It would have been just as effective at illistrating the difference. Less is more.


#23

Very well said and I applaud your integrity for speaking up in support despite our past differences - I take my hat off to you, Sir. The main point the mods miss, is that it doesn’t make any difference whether they move posts BECAUSE they are critical or not - the effect and impression given is the same; They can’t complain about the impression their actions leave with members of the Community. The very fact that any proposals/ideas/thoughts about how we can improve modding, now have to take place out of main public view, after the Community first agreed Meta was a category worthy of front page, speaks volumes.
How the Hell it can be argued that Meta is of less relevance to the Safe Network than many of the other categories, such as Community, other projects etc …baffles me. It certainly leaves the impression of censorship, whether intended or not. The fact that this isn’t even considered an issue by mods on this particular forum,…I just find incredible. These discussions are relevant and of interest to the larger Community and should be given back the prominent position they had previously imo. :smile:


#24

Please stop repeating this falsehood. Try describing how each mod came to be a mod - you were here when it all began, so you should be well aware of how the early mods were appointed. It was by community consensus. Over time we needed more mods, and they were community members who were invited by the existing mods because they demonstrated their ability to be mods community members.

We know you don’t like that this is not community democratic but a moderator team decision as we go forward. You have said recently that you will call on the community to support a change to this process. Not for the first time I encouraged you to do that so we can clear this up, and welcome it still, but you haven’t done it.

If you don’t plan to do anything about changing it, please stop making an issue of this and venting your own personal disgruntlement with the mods and the system we have on other topics. Or do what you said you would so we can get the community to select the mod appointment method it prefers.


#25

What falsehood?[quote=“happybeing, post:24, topic:6516”]
you were here when it all began, so you should be well aware of how the early mods were appointed. It was by community consensus.
[/quote]
No argument with that…[quote=“happybeing, post:24, topic:6516”]
Over time we needed more mods, and they were community members who were invited by the existing mods
[/quote]
There you go…that’s where the argument lies - no falsehood. Existing mods chose others based on their own image, rather than consult the Community.[quote=“happybeing, post:24, topic:6516”]
You have said recently that you will call on the community to support a change to this process. Not for the first time I encouraged you to do that so we can clear this up, and welcome it still, but you haven’t done it.
[/quote]
Correct, - I shall do this once Meta is returned to where I believe it belongs. This is so I can address the larger Community to garner support, so we have a level playing field and the arguments can be heard.[quote=“happybeing, post:24, topic:6516”]
please stop making an issue of this and venting your own personal disgruntlement with the mods and the system we have on other topics.
[/quote]
Lol…I have not not “vented my personal disgruntlement” whatsoever - I replied to another poster. Yet again, mods are trying to make out this is “personal” and only I feel this way. If you feel so confident in this and the mods position, then return Meta. (mods estimates as to Community satisfaction with mods does seem to vary wildly though - opinions seem to range from 99% to 99.9% support for them).
Why not test your theory and put your money where your mouths are? Return Meta to front page and we’ll have the debate.
What you all scared of…it’s only little ole me against 9 mods …tell you what, I’ll even let you pin another 6 badges on whoever you want…just to even things up…lol :smile:


#26

This is correct. That person made the same post several times in different categories. @Melvin deleted 2 of them (out of three) as you can see here:

The third same post was moved to “Off-topic” and @Melvin sent a PM to the user explaining what he did:

This is just normal moderation. We don’t allow cross-posts in different topics. So 1 (and only 1) topic was moved temporarily to “Off-topic”. The user was new to the forum ( and probably to how our PM-system works) so she replied with:

This is not so strange, as @Melvin explained why in a reply. He also stated that we might even look for a new category.

Is there anything wrong with this moderation? What did we do wrong in your opinion?? And here was my reply to the new person on the forum:

I said “be welcome” and also stated that we don’t kick people off the forum for posting in the wrong category, taking away her concerns of being kicked off the forum.

Anything wrong with that? What did I or @Melvin do wrong when it comes to moderation???

So for @Al_Kafir to state that we moved multiple of her topics to “Off-topic” is far away from the facts. And now he says:

Yes, she was talking about multiple posts. But not multiple posts being moved to “off-topic”. I showed you a screenshot as proof above.

As I quoted above, we some sort of did that. I said she was welcome, @Melvin explained why he did what he did. What else should we do??

And about trolling, that’s what we call misquoting over and over again, making incorrect statements etc. Same for saying that you don’t want to discuss “anything with mods” and reply a few replies later asking mods for an answer:

It consumes a lot of time and energy to reply to this sort of behavior. Same for not reading and asking the same question to a person that already answered that question to you. After a number of these incidents it’s no longer having a debate, but just trolling.

And now we get these sort of replies:

So for everyone here on the forum using @ moderators is just normal (as stated in the Forum Guidelines) but for some users it is not? I really asked a normal and polite question. Look at the answer I got.

And now we have these points made again:

This discussion is going in circles and is just plain opinion spamming. We answered all the points made again and again in different topics. Here they are.

So, to end my reply. We welcome debate on this forum. We are very open to critics and whatever. We replied to this new user using PM’s and here in this topic that she created. So to later on make false statements about it and claim we moved several of her topics somewhere else for being critical is far from the facts as I showed you. And it’s not just this incident as I showed you. Some users get themselves on the radar of the moderators while over 1700 users don’t.


#27

it was my first post which was moved to off topic…hence the reason why i reposted it. Each time i did it was removed…shouldn’t have been moved to off topic in the first place…this was where moderators made a mistake in my opinion…as it seemed as though they were trying to divert attention away from my post…again just my opinion. Interesting though in that we are all backing an internet which releases us from these so called ‘controls’ and yet the reality for some may not quite be as rosy as they imagine it to be.


#28

Jump in as a moderator to falsely accuse me of all sorts, then continue with the dishonest arguing and accusations throughout this thread…for one thing. :smile:

Change your mind?[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
This is not so strange, as @Melvin explained why in a reply. He also stated that we might even look for a new category.
[/quote]
Pretty strange to remove to off-topic in the first place tbh. So what was it about Natalie’s post that would warrant an entire new category in your view…and would it be another one away from main page? [quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
So for @Al_Kafir to state that we moved multiple of her topics to “Off-topic” is far away from the facts.
[/quote]
Again, I already addressed this, I used the word “posts” in reply to Natalie who used the word posts…it just goes on and on, doesn’t it?[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
Yes, she was talking about multiple posts. But not multiple posts being moved to “off-topic”. I showed you a screenshot as proof above.
[/quote]
Is this the only highly pedantic straw you have left to argue with?..lol
What exactly are you implying - that I deliberately used the word posts instead of post? Whatever…when you read through all your arguments, it’s clear to me you are left holding a big sack of nothing.[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
And about trolling, that’s what we call misquoting over and over again, making incorrect statements etc.
[/quote]
I see…so you’ve revealed yourself to be a troll throughout this thread with your constant misquoting and straw men representations of what I actually said?[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
Same for saying that you don’t want to discuss “anything with mods” and reply a few replies later asking mods for an answer:
[/quote]
I see…similar to saying you’re done with this discussion with Community members - then come back to chip in some more? The hypocrisy is astounding.[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
It consumes a lot of time and energy to reply to this sort of behavior.
[/quote]
Yes, it does and I’m sick to the back teeth of it now.[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
Same for not reading and asking the same question to a person that already answered that question to you. After a number of these incidents it’s no longer having a debate, but just trolling.
[/quote]
Totally agree - so stop trolling![quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
I really asked a normal and polite question. Look at the answer I got.
[/quote]
Making false accusations and dishonest arguing is the height of rudeness imo.[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
We welcome debate on this forum. We are very open to critics and whatever.
[/quote]
lol…so long as it’s not on main public view when talking about modding issues.[quote=“polpolrene, post:26, topic:6516”]
Some users get themselves on the radar of the moderators while over 1700 users don’t.
[/quote]
Oooooo…better watch my step had I? You lot are well on my radar, whereas the other 1691 aren’t…lol…what a joke. :smile:


#29

I’ve explained to you from minute one why it was moved (because it wasn’t in the right category). I also said I was going to look for the right category (which I did and it has got it’s place on the frontpage). There has been enough attention for it and probably the most active thread yesterday.

Do you think we all became moderators because we don’t like the goals of this project? It hasn’t been deleted, censored or whatever, only moderated for maybe an hour while it was available for everyone to read.


#30

So how is that going to happen when the way we left it was me saying to you: let me know when you are ready and we’ll address that, perhaps we can pin your topic to the front page. You haven’t responded since then to say you’re ready, or waiting for something.

Where Meta lives is another discussion and linking the two creates a deadlock, since that too needs to be OK’d by the mods or voted on by the community. It makes more sense to address these one at a time, so it’s up to you which you deal with first. Either way, I suggest you create a topic and we’ll make sure it is visible - and pinning it is obviously more prominent than putting it in Meta even if Meta was on the front page.

BTW The falsehood I refer to is your talk of mods appointing themselves when MaidSafe and the community made the initial selection, but gave no guidance on how to expand the team.

I take responsibility for how it went from there, and I will be happy to make the case for maintaining the current mechanism once the debate begins, and I’ll be interested to hear what ideas the community has, and very pleased to have a clear decision on what we all decide for the future.

I often see the mod team being referred to as if we aren’t part of the community, when the reason people have become mods is because they are very committed to the project, and have shown this by their activity as community members.

We are not your overlords, we’re people chosen from the community to administer the forum according to the guidelines. We created the guidelines over time because we needed to make clear to you all and to each other what moderation is, and why it is so.

It is up to the community to decide if it wants us to be removed, selected differently, guidelines changed etc. If you don’t bother to initiate that process, please stop raising it repeatedly here and there, because it creates a false impression of the situation, and is detrimental to the project - by portraying the forum as run by people who are not accountable and who are censorious of dissent. When what we are doing is asking you to hold us to account, and trying to strike a balance between free discussion useful to the whole community, and a forum that is welcoming and attractive to new visitors.

The only reason any of us mods put all this work in is because we value this forum and want it to be the best forum it can be in support of the SAFEnetwork and ProjectSAFE. Naturally we can’t please everyone all the time, and yes we do make mistakes. We’re tolerant of minor infractions, usually discuss issues and reach a consensus before acting on more serious or persistent issues, and constantly let people know we’re available to discuss any issues they have with us or others here.

Naturally being “in charge” draws criticism, especially from a community so passionate about freedom, and suspicious of authority (me too you know), but that doesn’t mean we are suddenly no longer people who hold the values that SAFEnetwork embodies. And we’re also human, and please remember :slightly_smiling: we’re doing our best for SAFEnetwork and this community.

And once again, if you don’t like the way we do things, it’s up to you to debate it with the community, put a proposal, and for a big change get consent through a vote. If not, I think it’s best for the project for you to accept what is and drop the issue.


#31

Maidsafe the company is paying for this forum and “the community” is running it. That doesn’t mean that mods were chosen by all. We decided not to have elections for moderators because we as mods need to work with the new people and most of the time active members show themselves as willing to help out. Not that different from your local tennisclub. We also had conversations about what should be on the frontpage and what not. As it turned out, most users didn’t like discussion about politics etc. on the frontpage. So we created “Off-topic” where people can talk whatever they want. Next to that we have META. Not on the frontpage as well. Here we can discuss whatever we want about the forum, the mods etc. On the frontpage we try to keep topics clean and ask people to reply on-topic. In “Off-topic” and “META” there’s more freedom. We had some debates about this.

“On topic” citations should stop.
Let the Users decide if something is off topic not the mods!
Proposal: Simplify Moderation, Accept it or Vote on it.
Request for consistent moderation towards reasoned arguments.

Point taken, next time we might just let it stay and move it when we see the right category (most of the time that’s quite clear, this time it wasn’t). Again, welcome to the forum. You are free to post whatever in “Off-topic”. The rest which is about Safenet/Maidsafe or other cryptoprojects is welcome in the other categories and shows up on the frontpage. And when it concerns this forum or moderation, META here is the place to be.


#32

Interesting but did @AlKafir know about this when he posted? I certainly didn’t. It doesn’t seem relevant as it wasn’t given knowledge to the conversation at hand. Sure it justifies why the posts were moved but that’s not in dispute. There is no debate whether Natalie’s posts should have been moved to the right category. There is no debate in why @Melvin moved them to off-topic, they were in the wrong category. The debate is in:

a) His behavior in this thread.
b) The protocol used when moving topics to the right category.
c) The amount of force and authority used vs communication and friendly humor.

It has been posed that Natalie, as a new member of the forums, may not be aware of how to use the PM system. Took me ages to learn it myself. So I think it’s only fair to ask is there anywhere in this thread or any other thread where anyone has asked if she knows how to use it? Furthermore has any mod sent her a tutorial on how to use the PM system? In fact I would propose that we create a sticky somewhere on this very subject for other new forum members to avoid similar issues.

You are kind of missing my point here. You did that, that is said she was welcome and explained the situation, further up in the topic addressing solely Natalie. Further down when addressing Al Kafir’s post you could again have kept a friendly tone and used humor to defuse the situation while again reminding her the situation was only temporary. Sometimes repeating a message is nessesary and can be very useful when addressing multiple parties.

Here’s how I would have handled it.

First on encountering the new member I’d have welcomed her to the forum, explain why her post/topic was in the wrong category, and if I wasn’t sure where to put it I’d leave it alone and tell her I’d talk to the mods about it and it would be moved shortly. I’d also ask if she knew how to use the PM system and inform her that she could message me and that she could message the whole mod team using @ moderators. In short I wouldn’t assume the new member knew what I knew and I would keep them as informed as possible.

As for the “Al Kafir” type incident I would recommend starting with some humor and just a light reminder of how the move to off topic was temporary. I agree moving things to off-topic was unnecessary but the real problem wasn’t the move it was lack of communication.

Also there seems to be this perception that because you post something once in a thread that a) Everyone including your target will notice it. b) Understand it the way you intend it. and c) Mean the same thing in every circumstance of conversation. This is a false assumption and where repeating oneself comes in.

That’s not trolling. That’s what it’s like having a debate with someone who is extremely rational and OCD about having his facts in order. Believe me I know I’ve thrown down and had several debates with Al Kafir. He’s not being a troll he’s just not letting you get away with not getting your sequences correct. And he’s also returning what he perceives as your ill manners with his own.

He also believes vehemently in democracy and can be a bit of a git at times. From what I can gather from this conversation and others he doesn’t seem to acknowledge authority that isn’t derived from democratic consensus. That would also explain the second answer you got. He’s not being rude he’s being passionate about his political beliefs, well it’s possible he’s being both but still.

However I do agree with @happybeing that @AlKafir should take his passion and do something actively constructive with it. Post something on meta, work with the mods, post a poll or something but do something possitive. Frankly I think his efforts with votecoin are one of his better projects for expressing his passion for democracy. I’m not so crazy about it myself but it’s a good expression for what he believes in.

Personally I don’t really believe in democracy at all. I actually like a system where people just step up and get opted for their efforts. However I can see where additional transparancy could be good.

Is it possible to give the end user direct control over which categories appear on the mainpage? If so that might be an effective compromise. That way people could choose which categories to view and which to ignore according to their interests.


#33

When we saw a new user @Melvin jumped in quite fast to send her a PM and replied to her topic. I think it was even within 30 minutes. Our forum welcomes new users. The post in meta was created when she was missing her posts after trying to post in different categories. Not so weird when you are new to a forum IMO. Nothing to blame at all. Which again, sorted out quite fast.

This is where we differ in view. That topic got replies which had nothing to do with the topic: “Although a few people are concerned about their privacy/security online this isn’t a widespread feeling”. It went over to being about moderators again. That’s the reason several replies today were moved to this thread. And the questions you raise where addressed in this topic as well. Not about “the protocol used”. Because we don’t have a protocol for when we don’t know exactly where a topic fits best. In this case it was for a short time moved to somewhere else. I already replied above that next time we might let it sit for some time and decide later to remove it to another topic or not.

Nope, this is a good point. We have a sticky with a lot of explanation on this forum but not how to use PM. Maybe we should write one. Interested to make a draft? Help is always welcome.


#34

Ok, you just banned me for a week for “spamming my opinion”, so I will respond to that accusation here, where it was made as I believe in “right to reply” and transparency…
First, let’s recap what started all this off…the facts:
A new user was upset about having her post removed to off-topic by mods - fact.

Here is the “opinion spamming” snippet from my reply, that @Melvin took issue with:

My reply to @Natalie_Bertoncello was an attempt to retain a new user and reconcile and defuse the situation - this was also pointed out by @Blindsite2k to whom this was also apparent.
OK, could I ask if anybody sees any opinion whatsoever expressed in the above contentious quote…seriously…I mean properly read it, then circle where it strays from fact to opinion…go on…just have a go…lol :smile:
Well, what I see is a stream of facts followed by a final sentence where I agree with @natalie’s opinion and words- …now can any objective person say anything other than that and then go on to conclude it is even “opinion”, nevermind “opinion spamming”.
OK, this is where @Melvin jumps in with what I’d describe as a much better example of “opinion spamming”

The post goes on to basically tell me to get my facts straight and stop “trolling” He then goes on to give the 1st of a changing series of confusing “explanations” of the “facts”.that I should be getting straight.
I acknowledged this explanation:

Anyway, in regard to the “spamming” aspect of the accusation. The thread was moved to “Meta” - a category treated very much like off-topic and away from the front page. Can anybody please also explain to me how discussing and expressing my opinion about this forum, its organization, how it works, and how we can improve it;…… in the Category sub-titled, “Discussion about this forum, its organization, how it works, and how we can improve it”,can ever be considered “spam”- it’s seems nonsensical.
Not only that, but users have to search for it - how can it be a distraction to anybody whatsoever - which is surely the only possible reason to not allow “opinion spamming” in the first place?
The only reason I posted any responses at all was to defend myself against a barrage of false accusations and dishonest arguing from mods in any case.
Here’s @polpolrene’s first unsubstantiated accusation:[quote=“polpolrene, post:16, topic:6516”]
@Al_Kafir accused a mod of moving a reply to “off-topic” because that post was “critical”.
[/quote]
I then clearly denied doing any such thing and also clearly explained:

[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:19, topic:6516”]
OK, let’s break it down for you. Where in this statement did I state that the “critical posts” were removed for being “critical”? It was also “unnecessary” as I correctly pointed out - unless of course you are arguing that moving to off-topic, prior to moving to Meta was a “necessary” step.
[/quote] at which point @polpolrene rather than concede the clear lack of any evidence for his claim, proceeds to try and justify his false claim in a very convoluted, confused and unreasoned way. As already demonstrated above, there wasn’t even any opinion there to contort in such a way (in order to create such a straw man) in the first place!
It doesn’t appear to be even feasibly possible for me to have committed the offences I’m accused of…nevermind all the blatant and hypocritical ignoring of all given answers and facts
Everything should have just ended there, but mods just continued with the dishonest arguing, then decided to ban me for a week for defending myself…lol
Real shame…anyway I will continue to “spam” my opinion wherever I see fit and will continue in exactly the same way, not change one iota and will now set about dis-mantling the current centralised modding system. I shall do this in my own time and in my own way, adhering to the guidelines, posting in relevant topics and using honest reasoned argument (as usual). Whatever road- blocks may be put in my way, I aim to achieve my goal…your’ only option now is to ban me permanently really, because otherwise I will remove your system and every last one of you…:I’m coming to get you… :smile:
Hey @happybeing, do you remember when we argued for months on end about me wanting an off-topic category for all the distracting supernatural, religion and quackery posts etc - I called it “spam”, you argued against - yet you call this spam? You fought me tooth and nail, arguing freedom of speech…how things have changed, huh? 180 degrees… :disappointed:
How many other people on this forum have even been banned (nevermind for a week at New Year holidays) for the much more obvious cases of spamming their opinion repeatedly on every other subject under the sun except re-structuring modding?


#35

Oh so that’s where u were!

Missed u man, glad you’re back.

You’ve been a dedicated and valued member of this forum for years. Sorry that happened :stuck_out_tongue:


Moderation and the environment here
#36

Hi @Al_Kafir, welcome back. This reply is by all mods and we’'ll reply only once as a team.
Your suspension for 7 days was a buildup of “incidents” over the last few months. First of all, in a discussion with us you kept asking the same questions over and over again even while we already answered the questions. You even already responded to an answer we gave. And still you kept asking the same questions over and over again. Example 1 and Example 2. That’s not improving the discussion and not in line with the FG. It’s more like spamming opinion or just trying to irritate people.

In another topic you said that you didn’t want to discuss anything with the mods. But a few replies later you asked what the other mods were thinking. So you wanted to talk moderation with us, then you didn’t want to discuss anything with us, only to ask later in the same topic what we think. That’s not improving the discussion and not in line with the FG. Here’s the topic.

When a point was made by a mod, replying to your concerns you said “I can’t be arsed checking”. So you want attention from the mods, someone replies to your concerns but than you’re not improving the discussion by just being ignorant about the answer you were given. Why ask any of us anything than?

Then we have 2 misquotes in 1 topic. Here and here. It can happen once as an accident, but not twice in the same topic. You made it look like Person A said something which Person B said. And it’s not really that hard to quote people in the right way on discourse.

Next we have your reply about moderation again in a topic that’s about marketing. We asked you several times to talk moderation in META, but you keep talking the subject in different categories. And next to that, you implied that we as mods moved several of the new topics to “Off-topic” for being critical which is an incorrect statement as explained here by @polpolrene. You also stated that “it happened before” and is of great concern. That’s again not correct. It implies that mods take topics and move them to “Off-topic” for being critical. We never did such a thing. We move stuff to “Off-topic” because it’s “Off-topic”. When you make false statements like that you’re not improving the discussion which again is not in line with the FG. It gives false information to people that visit our forum (even while not logged in).

You also stated that you don’t want to use @ moderators for any interaction with us. You said:

Not a chance…lol…why on Earth would I raise concerns about a self organising “Tufty club” that believes it has the right to judge and moderate others to the Tufty club itself? You’re all just members of the Community who have pinned badges on themselves…you have absolutely no legitimacy for the positions you hold and I’ll take as much notice of you as you do me - your badge means sod all… :smile:

This whole reply is (close to) a personal attack but we decided not to delete it. But again, it shows that you’re not willing to be in line with the FG where it’s stated that one should use @ moderaters if things are unclear. You’re also not improving any discussion with replies like this. Maidsafe pays for this website, we just moderate it as volunteers.

Over the last few months you were asked to propose a different way of running this forum. You were even told that we would post a serious idea with voting etc. as a sticky on the frontpage. But again, you keep making statements that META first needs to be back on the frontpage or that otherwise no one would see your proposal. That’s a very unfair and incorrect statement as explained by @happybeing here. You make it look if we are unwilling to listen to anything you say. But we never received any document with a proposal. In the same topic you made another incorrect statement about how mods were chosen.

This list could even be longer. And it’s not only mods that notice. We received a number of flags/complains as well. And to make one thing clear, we don’t suspend people easily. We have a very good debate about it with the mods before we do. It happened 3 times over the last 1,5 year with different users (except for spam accounts). And we don’t like to do it. But everyone on this forum should stay in line with the Forum Guidelines. We don’t exclude people from that.

The mods.


Discussion on reducing the trust level requirements of the Price & Trading topic
Is the community getting tired of maidsafe
#37

I see…so it was a retrospective punishment and nothing to do with anything I did recently? All the false accusations, dishonest arguing etc is just going to be brushed under the carpet then and my refutations go un-answered? You are actually telling me you had a week long ban “on hold” until you felt like using it at some convenient future date…whether an “offence” is committed or not?
OK…I’m getting bored of having to spend my time responding to Mods tbh…it’s only because I have to defend myself against this nonsense.
So now the reason has changed now has it to repeatedly asking the same questions - well, I’ll look into that extra accusation shortly, but maybe pointing me to the part that says repeating the same question more than once is liable for a 1 week ban - nevermind that it has nothing to do with recent events and given reasons.
OK, I’m looking at “example 1” where @happybeing answers another user’s question (not mine). [quote=“happybeing, post:29, topic:6061”]
it belongs to the community at least in spirit though legally an individual owns the domain
[/quote]
The first part is a bit meaningless…but…whatever…Oh…I see, do you mean the moving of the Meta category question? Ok let’s have a look…yes, I asked @happybeing a similar question I asked of you. You again jumped in before Happy replied. Firstly, as I said it was a different question to the one answered by happy (to somebody else) and the pertinent difference is the highlighted text: