Unfair locking of topic by emotionally involved moderator

[vvaltchev]

Hello moderators and fellow members,
yesterday, this topic viewtopic.php?f=11&t=56502 was locked without any justification by klange, who was (emotionally) involved in the conversation itself. Despite all of my attempts to explain that none of the topic was an attack on him or his work, that's how he perceived it. Now, I'm unable to respond to all the other people who made very interesting comments on the topic.

Please, take a look at the conversation.

In general, I believe we should establish the rule that if a moderator is involved in the conversation, he/she shouldn't be the one to eventually lock the topic. That should be done by a different (neutral) moderator.


Thank you

[iansjack]

Just as a matter of interest, how do you know which moderator locked the thread?

[klange]

Just as a matter of interest, how do you know which moderator locked the thread?

Because I sent an explanatory PM saying why I was locking the thread.

[devc1]

Whoever the owner of this SerenityOS, if you want to compete or users to use your OS. You should update your Windows XP GUI. I am not insulting you, this is just my fair opinion.
Updating the GUI is very easy, learn some 3d algebra and update the compositor.
Thanks,
Devc1

[iansjack]

I’ve got to say that I agree that, as far as I can see, the decision to lock the thread was not impartial. It was a discussion without any personal side (apart from a rather strange assertion from one side that it was personal), well argued, and interesting. And, being in “General Ramblings”, it was in no way distracting from the prime purpose of these forums.

I agree with the OP here that a moderator personally involved in an argument should not act unilaterally but should defer to disinterested moderators. Else we end up with a Brendan situation. Moderators are here to ensure the forums run smoothly, not to impose their personal views by preventing dissent.

Just my opinion.

[nexos]

In general, I believe we should establish the rule that if a moderator is involved in the conversation, he/she shouldn't be the one to eventually lock the topic. That should be done by a different (neutral) moderator.

In theory, but when there's only one active mod who can do that, that doesn't work. I believe that more moderators should be added so we can have accountability.

As far as the topic itself goes, I can see both sides of the story. It's just that locking a discussion / argument the locker was involved in heavily isn't best practice.

[iansjack]

In general, I believe we should establish the rule that if a moderator is involved in the conversation, he/she shouldn't be the one to eventually lock the topic. That should be done by a different (neutral) moderator.

In theory, but when there's only one active mod who can do that, that doesn't work.

That’s not the case with that forum, so it’s not germane to the OP’s point. One of the more prolific poster in these forums is also a moderator.

[nexos]

In general, I believe we should establish the rule that if a moderator is involved in the conversation, he/she shouldn't be the one to eventually lock the topic. That should be done by a different (neutral) moderator.

In theory, but when there's only one active mod who can do that, that doesn't work.

That’s not the case with that forum, so it’s not germane to the OP’s point. One of the more prolific poster in these forums is also a moderator.

It looks like there are 3 (maybe 4?) active mods. Of course the other mods may be active and just not login too often, but looking at last-logins over time, they are the 3 most active.

One of them (actually the same poster I believe you're talking about) doesn't have access to most mod controls (IIRC).

But for the most part, I do agree with you. I know that this forum takes a pretty lax approach to moderation typically. I know this forum has discussed this many times, and I don't feel like delving into the politics of OSDev.org. But with that being said, switching to a heavy-handed approach when you're involved in the discussion (and especially when the discussion hadn't even gotten out of hand) does bother me. Many discussions that really should have been locked remained open, but then one the moderator is involved in gets locked all of a sudden. Doesn't sound good to me.

For the record, I do actually agree with klange in the actual discussion. But I think locking that thread was a little unnecessary.

Whoever the owner of this SerenityOS, if you want to compete or users to use your OS. You should update your Windows XP GUI.

Err, that's actually one of the explicit design goals of SerenityOS. It says in the README: "SerenityOS is a love letter to '90s user interfaces with a custom Unix-like core." It's more of just a hobby, not really an OS designed to "compete" (whatever that really means).

[iansjack]

For the record, I do actually agree with klange in the actual discussion.

I can see both sides of the argument. Completely rewriting all the software in your OS is a great ambition, but it does seem (to me) to be an unrealistic one.

But it was a valid discussion, and I can see no reason to lock it.

[devc1]

Yes, why would you recreate a compiler and an assembler ? Those things are available, your OS isn't available and that's what you should put work on.

[eekee]

Well, that was an interesting lesson in how a thread can go wrong. I thought vvaltchev's first post in the locked thread innocent enough except for the strange omission of hobbyists writing POSIX OSs in the hope that they would be used. (I thought those people were in the majority not so long ago. I do get the wrong impression sometimes, but I really did feel like I was in the minority for not wanting to imitate POSIX or Windows.) Then klange comes back with how his OS doesn't fit either category, but instead is a learning tool for himself and is becoming a learning tool for others. Coincidentally, just this morning I was thinking of the "9fans" who wish Plan 9's file history had a commit log so they could learn why Thompson, Ritchie et al made the choices they did. If these 9fans wrote their own OSs, even poor-quality ones, they would understand many of the choices. Getting back to the point, I can very much understand klange's point of view. And I think I should stop talking about people like they're not here. Sorry guys, it's just hard for me to find the right phrasing.

@vvaltchev: I'm sure you meant no harm by your attempt at categorizing people here, but whether you want to think so or not, you accidentally offended some people. (I wonder what people involved in Managarm are thinking.) You're doing nobody any good, least of all yourself, by insisting you didn't offend. I'm sure you'd have a much more productive discussion by acknowledging the mistake and adjusting your categories to accomodate klange's position. I also suggest considering Managarm which, like TiLK, is a serious attempt at a POSIX system; it differs in aiming for source rather than binary compatibility. Managarm has attracted developers from other communities who then come here to these forums for advice.

I don't think this is anything like what happened with Brendan, with the caveat that the Brendan situation was complex and I may have missed something.

[iansjack]

I think you miss the point. The content of the thread in question is not the problem.

Klange may have been justified in their outrage (personally I think the outrage is nonsense). But the appearance is of using the moderator position to deal with that outrage - an option unavailable to other outraged posters. That is entirely inappropriate - it’s like a magistrate judging their own speeding offence and finding themselves not guilty.

The appropriate action is surely what any poster (or magistrate) should do - refer the matter to another authority and abide by their judgement. This is what Brendan failed to do and what Klange failed to do; defer to a disinterested party.

[klange]

That is entirely inappropriate - it’s like a magistrate judging their own speeding offence and finding themselves not guilty.

This comparison doesn't make any sense... a more apt metaphor would be a judge getting in a car accident and declaring the other party at fault, but that's not really fair either - I didn't ban vvaltchev, I performed the forum equivalent of putting police tape around the accident site.

The appropriate action is surely what any poster (or magistrate) should do - refer the matter to another authority and abide by their judgement. This is what Brendan failed to do and what Klange failed to do; defer to a disinterested party.

Brendan irreversibly deleted posts, removing evidence, and then banned the posters. I locked one thread for violating rule 7.

... and in all of this time since this complaint was posted not a single other moderator has responded or unlocked that thread.

[klange]

For everyone talking about letting other moderators deal with an issue I was involved in personally, please note that this is why we lock threads in the first place. It is not a punitive measure against the author of the thread (half the time I lock threads, the OP has nothing to do with it), but rather an investigative one. Locking threads prevents edits, preserving the conversation as it was and giving other moderators an opportunity to read things in their original state. It also gives everyone involved - myself included, in this case - time to step back and cool off. I do not appreciate the comparisons with Brendan, as I am trying very hard to follow procedure and not repeat his mistakes.

I am disappointed that none of the other moderators have responded to this thread. We do have two or three mods besides myself who are active and have posted in the last two weeks. Most of us joined to fight spam and spend most of our time approving new accounts; none of us particularly want to get involved in active moderation of posts from regular users. This can make it difficult to deal with these situations.

[iansjack]

Rule 7: … Don't provoke fights or participate in fights started by others.

Who broke rule 7?