@Brendan

[chase]

I'd like it if all of us can discuss moderation style. Moderation should almost never be needed for other moderators, moderators that have stepped down or really anyone that has been a member here for years. Good moderation should have weeded out the people that aren't contributing sometime before the 12 year mark.

Even the new members that have social interaction issue shouldn't be insta-banned. We should be trying to nurture talent in this space. I get that this may come across as peace, love, and rainbows but if Linus can admit he has been unprofessional then hopeful anyone here can improve too.

But sometimes people that both contribute can rub each other the wrong way. That is the reason there is a "Add Foe" option when you view someones profile, so you are less likely to interact with the people you don't get along with. There is nothing wrong with using that feature even if you are a mod.

I think I've unbanned and restored moderator rights for everyone effected, let me know if I missed anything/anyone. I'm back to being the only admin, I think it created an unfair balance of power but I'm happy to appoint additional mods if anyone with a history of positive contributions and interactions is up for the task.

[chase]

Unlocking but no fighting. I'm open to hearing ways we can improve the moderation here.

[iansjack]

It is always difficult when a moderator of a forum is also a prolific contributor to that forum. But I appreciate that it is unlikely that you will get moderators on a forum like this who do not want to contribute.

Perhaps there should be a rule - or a convention - that moderators do not moderate threads in which they are active participants but refer any problem to another moderator? This would go some way towards removing any suspicion of personal factors affecting moderation decisions.

And perhaps there should be some mechanism of appeal that doesn't involve creating a new profile (which then leads to the threat of permanent expulsion)?

[Solar]

I already informed chase, but thought I should add this here too:

I will abstain from the discussion for now unless explicitly asked to comment.

[klange]

I'm happy to appoint additional mods if anyone with a history of positive contributions and interactions is up for the task.

I often find myself reporting actual spam (of the bot-posted-links-to-malware-websites variety) that sometimes takes a day or two for a moderator to remove, so if there's a position available...

[StudlyCaps]

It is always difficult when a moderator of a forum is also a prolific contributor to that forum. But I appreciate that it is unlikely that you will get moderators on a forum like this who do not want to contribute.

Perhaps there should be a rule - or a convention - that moderators do not moderate threads in which they are active participants but refer any problem to another moderator? This would go some way towards removing any suspicion of personal factors affecting moderation decisions.

And perhaps there should be some mechanism of appeal that doesn't involve creating a new profile (which then leads to the threat of permanent expulsion)?

I agree that moderators should avoid taking disciplinary action simply to resolve arguments, doubly so if the argument directly involves them.

Also having an appeal mechanism probably isn't a bad idea, however true ban evasion should still result in a perma-ban.

I posted in another thread about this cause I didn't see this one, this is all I'm going to say on this issue.

[Brendan]

Hi,

I'd like it if all of us can discuss moderation style. Moderation should almost never be needed for other moderators, moderators that have stepped down or really anyone that has been a member here for years. Good moderation should have weeded out the people that aren't contributing sometime before the 12 year mark.

Even the new members that have social interaction issue shouldn't be insta-banned. We should be trying to nurture talent in this space. I get that this may come across as peace, love, and rainbows but if Linus can admit he has been unprofessional then hopeful anyone here can improve too.

But sometimes people that both contribute can rub each other the wrong way. That is the reason there is a "Add Foe" option when you view someones profile, so you are less likely to interact with the people you don't get along with. There is nothing wrong with using that feature even if you are a mod.

I think I've unbanned and restored moderator rights for everyone effected, let me know if I missed anything/anyone. I'm back to being the only admin, I think it created an unfair balance of power but I'm happy to appoint additional mods if anyone with a history of positive contributions and interactions is up for the task.

Was my wording "unfortunate"? In hindsight, yes. At times I get overly passionate (especially about inefficient software), and at times I can be human.

However that is not the issue here. Due to ongoing mutual dislike, Solar lied about being "offended" (for the sake of hypothetical others) and launched a smear campaign (including using social media as a tool to exert pressure) to challenge the authority of a moderator. If you allow this kind of behaviour the end result is a team of janitors cleaning up spam who lack the power to moderate effectively and lack the courage to do what they believe to be right regardless of personal consequences.

If you are serious about caving in to an attacker's pressure, perhaps you should begin by unbanning Andrew (the guy that was using DDoS attacks against this site last year). After all, how can you say Solar deserves to be unbanned while others do not?


Cheers,

Brendan

[Solar]

Ok. I wanted to deescalate and refrain from commenting, but you keep putting ME in the dock here.

You banned me before this thread was even created, and before you even brought this alleged "vendetta" up. You also did not provide any references so that people could make up their own minds, or I could say a word in my defense. At this point everybody has to take your word for it, and I have no idea what exactly you are talking about.

Please stop painting yourself as the victim here; you aren't the one ridiculed, attacked without proof, or banned from the forum.

Also, there is THREE issues at hand by now: The bullying behavior displayed in the referenced thread, the alleged "vendetta", and the subject of (ab)using moderator privileges. Please keep them separate.

[iansjack]

I think this is getting just a little ridiculous. To compare Solar with Andrew is scrapping the barrel in an attempt to justify unjustifiable behaviour.

Oh my. I've been sitting here crying for the last half an hour. Why won't you stop harassing me??

I honestly don't think that a moderator who deals with a situation in this way is suitable to be a moderator (let alone some sort of self-proclaimed super-moderator). Baiting other posters in this way, by a moderator, should not be acceptable.

For goodness sake, Brendan, just apologise to Solar for your behaviour and let it drop.

[Brendan]

Hi,

You banned me before this thread was even created, and before you even brought this alleged "vendetta" up.

Yes, a short temporary ban to illustrate how easy it is for people to (falsely) claim they've been offended, in response to my (not proven at the time) belief that you were pretending to be offended.

You also did not provide any references so that people could make up their own minds, or I could say a word in my defense. At this point everybody has to take your word for it, and I have no idea what exactly you are talking about.

People are free to search the forums and make up their own mind. The only things they won't find are discussions between us using private messages, like this:

Cheers,

Brendan

[iansjack]

Every post that you make just serves to reinforce the impression that your banning Solar was as a result of past differences - to teach him a lesson - rather than anything said in the thread. That is not mature behaviour.

[Solar]

People are free to search the forums and make up their own mind. The only things they won't find are discussions between us using private messages, like this:

You have been asked to clarify which previous events made you think I am on a "vendetta to undermine you". As that was your rationale for action, it is up to you to provide the reference, not for every single person here to do own research.

Either way this does not justify your behavior in that other thread (which I am currently not elaborating on as that should be part of a larger discussion on bullying that I don't see happening at this time and place), or using your moderator privileges to "make a point" or silence a discussion.

[Brendan]

Hi,

I think this is getting just a little ridiculous. To compare Solar with Andrew is scrapping the barrel in an attempt to justify unjustifiable behaviour.

I wanted to highlight where the slippery slope leads.

Oh my. I've been sitting here crying for the last half an hour. Why won't you stop harassing me??

I honestly don't think that a moderator who deals with a situation in this way is suitable to be a moderator (let alone some sort of self-proclaimed super-moderator). Baiting other posters in this way, by a moderator, should not be acceptable.

Reflecting someone else's behaviour back at them is certainly unorthodox. If you think you can do a better job than me, consistently, for as long as I have; then Chase has said that he's happy to appoint additional mods if anyone with a history of positive contributions and interactions is up for the task (and I've believed you qualify for years, which is why I offered you the role several years ago).

For goodness sake, Brendan, just apologise to Solar for your behaviour and let it drop.

I don't see that as a viable option.


Cheers,

Brendan

[Brendan]

Hi,

People are free to search the forums and make up their own mind. The only things they won't find are discussions between us using private messages, like this:

You have been asked to clarify which previous events made you think I am on a "vendetta to undermine you". As that was your rationale for action, it is up to you to provide the reference, not for every single person here to do own research.

I honestly doubt anyone is capable of believing that after ~15 years either of us reacted the way we did over a single topic.

The reason this topic was originally locked is to prevent arguments going around and around in circles getting nowhere. I'm happy for people (especially Chase) to make up their own mind, including doing their own research (that is not biased by either of us) if they feel the need; and thought you were happy for this too; and I still don't want arguments going around and around in circles getting nowhere.


Cheers,

Brendan

[iansjack]

I wanted to highlight where the slippery slope leads.

It's a pity that you don't see fit to consider where the slippery slope of banning people because of personal antipathy leads.

You are basically saying that no-one can disagree with you - not in your role as a moderator, but in your role as a poster. That is an obvious abuse of your moderator position. You then further the abuse by saying that you can overrule all of the other moderators as you are "the chosen one".

Perhaps we need an FBI investigation.