OSDev.org

Love4Boobies wrote:As far as I can remember, bzt was banned not because of a filesystem discussion but because he posted a lot about how he wants to revoke his permission

You remember it wrong. That topic where Brendan originally banned me was entirely deleted by Brendan btw, as well as my boot loader topic which had no flame in it at all. Maybe a moderator can get those back from a backup to see if I'm telling the truth. But I have other proofs.

I would have no reason in the first place to ask for removing my contributions if it weren't for the original unfair ban. Brendan deleted that too, but I made a screenshot, so you can read my posts why I wanted my contributions to be removed (attached).

And just for the records, I also think it would have been enough to revoke Brendan's moderator status, banning him (although he was very rude to me) maybe a bit too much, but understandable given the circumstances how he treated Solar.

Cheers,
bzt

Hi,

As far as I can remember, bzt was banned not because of a filesystem discussion but because he posted a lot about how he wants to revoke his permission to share everything he contributed to the wiki, which is obviously ridiculous. We selected CC0 particularly to protect the wiki. After arguing aggressively for this and being rejected by several members including Brendan, he started questioning Brendan's ability to moderate as he doesn't even have an OS to show off (???). I think this sort of stuff is poisonous and would rather have him banned.

If I'm wrong and this happened after the incident (on my phone, hard to check right now), I still don't think his attitude is excusable so same conlusion.

The filesystem incident happened before that, i.e. in July 2017. IIRC, bzt posted about his filesystem design and Brendan started criticising it (there were however several things in bzt's filesystem that could be improved). The problem arose when Brendan's criticisms got a bit over the board and bzt started defending himself and his design, which naturally also got a bit over the board when he started counter-criticising Brendan. The result was a temporary ban of a month. When the ban ended, bzt made another post, this time accusing Brendan of abusing his moderator privileges, which resulted in a permanent ban. bzt has been ban evading several times and every time accusing Brendan of abusing his moderator privileges. One of these times it also involved asking to remove all his wiki contributions.

Given all of these topics have been deleted, it's hard to judge. I suggest we give bzt the benefit of doubt for now.


Regards,
glauxosdever

iansjack wrote:Unless you provide some clear way of appealing a moderator's decision, that rule is patently unfair.

Here, here. I am pretty sure that with both Solar and BZT - and even with cases such as AndrewThompson555 - having a formal a channel for making appeals would have gone far in de-escalating the situations.

The ideal solution, IMAO, is that during a ban, the forum software should still allow a person to log in, but only have access to an otherwise hidden 'moderator appeal board' section (no other fora, nor PMs), which would allow the banned individual to speak to the other moderators. Posts to this should request feedback by both email and PM from all active moderators. For permanent bans, there should be a time limit for appeals, perhaps a month or two.

I don't know if this is possible in this version (or any newer version) of PHPBB, or in any other forum software for that matter.

I should add that during the time of a temporary ban, the mod who implemented the ban should not have the power to permaban that individual, nor should any mod have the authority to delete posts to the Appeals Board, nor should any edits be allowed once posted - an audit trail should be mandatory for that.

Again, I have no idea if this is even feasible with the current forum software or any other.

Actually, I would prefer a system that hides rather deletes unwanted posts; I think this is how it actually works in PHPBB. or at least there is the option to, but I am not sure.

For what's it worth, I haven't been much on these forums for the past year and the only reason is Brendan. I don't feel the need to repeat what has been already said many times on this thread, but his attitude and behaviour is not good for the health of this forum. It is unfortunate because he is very knowledgeable about technical issues and helps a lot of people.

I've seen many other posters that I enjoyed reading simply disappear over time (Sortie, Combuster and others). I suspected what the reason was. Now I know.

Since so many people are raising their voice now in this thread, let me also add a small comment.

To be honest, Brendan is / used to be one of the reasons why I do visit this forum. His attitude and behavior are one thing, but his contributions belong to the most valuable information I have read on OS development. He has clearly influenced a number of design decisions I made, and many of his posts are as detailed and elaborate as if they were excerpts from a textbook (so that I even bookmarked them, and followed them when I implemented things). So, while I agree that any misbehavior (such as insults or abuse of moderator rights) should have consequences (such as revoking of moderator rights), I see it as a big loss for the forum to have Brendan gone permanently. So while I think that a temporary ban may be well justified so that people have time to calm their minds, I would consider a permanent ban to have a rather negative impact. In fact, I'm also reading has comments on IRC, and I'm very happy that he is active there.

I think having some kind of "appeal board", or at least the possibility to send a PM to a (possibly different) moderator is a good idea. Also I think it would be good if bans would be issued only after they have been discussed among the moderators and there is an agreement on banning someone. This is how we handle it in a different forum, where I am a moderator.

On the issue of bzt demanding that all his contributions to the wiki be removed, that was a fully understandable reaction to the awful way he had been treated by a rogue moderator who behaved as if he owned the forum and seemed to be able to get away with anything. This does not reflect badly on bzt at all and should not be held against him. All he did was stand up to a bully. More of us should have done the same, and we should all have spoken out at the time.

(Incidentally, the bzt episode led to me writing a rude poem called Rogue Moderator which I was thinking about getting a friend in Canada to post here anonymously, but there's no need for that now and it would be harmful to share it publicly because it came out way strong to throw at Brendan in the current circumstances. However, if anyone has a problem with a rogue moderator on another forum, just let me know and I'll post it there anonymously for you if it looks justified. It's military-grade.)

Schol-R-LEA wrote:

Qbyte wrote: Brendan in no way deserved to be banned for his exchanges with other users. Say what you want about his personality, but he's been arguably the single most valuable and active member of this community [...]

Given what some of the mods are saying about what happened in the privacy of the moderator forum, it sounds as if the main reason for this was because he'd driven most of the other major participants away from the group.

That is my read. I've seen many valuable contributors leave one by one over the past ~18 months. What's interesting is that some of them came back to comment on this thread. So they didn't leave, they just stopped posting.

Hi guys,

XenOS wrote:Since so many people are raising their voice now in this thread, let me also add a small comment.

To be honest, Brendan is / used to be one of the reasons why I do visit this forum. His attitude and behavior are one thing, but his contributions belong to the most valuable information I have read on OS development. He has clearly influenced a number of design decisions I made, and many of his posts are as detailed and elaborate as if they were excerpts from a textbook (so that I even bookmarked them, and followed them when I implemented things). So, while I agree that any misbehavior (such as insults or abuse of moderator rights) should have consequences (such as revoking of moderator rights), I see it as a big loss for the forum to have Brendan gone permanently. So while I think that a temporary ban may be well justified so that people have time to calm their minds, I would consider a permanent ban to have a rather negative impact. In fact, I'm also reading has comments on IRC, and I'm very happy that he is active there.

I too have refrained from posting about this issue as well. However, I agree and my thoughts are similar to XenOS's.

Yes, I thought that Brendan's actions were a bit out of order. From what I remember, Bzt was just starting to work on file systems, which is one of my favorite subjects, and had some ideas. Yes, he might have been a little strong in some of his opinions, but we all are at some point. Brendan didn't need to go as far as he did.

However, that being said, I too totally agree that the lack of Brendan's presence here is a loss. His (calm and generous) posts to help those in need have been a joy to read. Speaking of the file system subject, and the subject that might have started all of this, I still work on and enjoy this Simple File System Brendan drew up.

My recommendation, if it has any pull, would be to allow Brendan to return as the same account, just no moderation abilities.

As for Bzt's original account, or any others afterwards, I believe that his original account should be restored and allowed to continue to post with it, all later ones marked inactive or other.

As for permanent banning of members, I too believe this should be a two-moderator minimum decision.

I would/will welcome both Brendan (as a non-moderator) and Bzt back and think nothing of the past.

I also want to thank those who do spend their (undoubtedly little spare) time moderating this forum. I am sure that from the outside, it looks like it would be a simple task to do. But once it was a mandatory part of their lives, it isn't nearly as simple or enjoyable a thing as it might seem. Thank you to all of those who do this as well as all of those here that post. This is an enjoyable hobby and I thank those who participate in it.

Ben

It is unfortunate, in a lot of ways. He was one of, if not the, most technically literate member of the group. and one of the more eloquent. He had a way of cutting to the heart of problems, and if he was brusk and often rude, he was also quick to explain the problems with ideas, and would do his best to find solutions. Most of the time, in a cool and even tone.

Most of the time.

Unfortunately, he's a bit of an Icarus; he is so convinced that he's right about most things that he sees any disagreement as a personal attack, or at the very least, a reason to go on the offensive himself. This trait didn't seem to mellow with age, either.

That's a volatile quality to see in a moderator, especially here in Hell's Forum, where nearly everyone thinks they are - no, not the next Gordon Ramsay, but the next Linus Torvalds. Unfortunately, Brendan's winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost attitude seemed to me to encourage that clash of egos.

The rest of us, both the mods and the ordinary users like myself, will have a lot of trouble filling his shoes. But hopefully we can do so with less friction now.

I hope he can come back eventually, as a forum-goer but not a mod, though I think that even if he does return at some point, some time away is called for. For the forum's sake, and I think, for his own.

XenOS wrote:Since so many people are raising their voice now in this thread, let me also add a small comment.

To be honest, Brendan is / used to be one of the reasons why I do visit this forum.

Same here.

It's really unfortunate to see Brendan go. If I remember correctly, Brendan used to be one of the few to post a meticulous reply, oftentimes the only one to overlook a newbie's ignorance and help him/her out. Back in the days, there used to be some arrogant smart-a**** trolling this forum who thought they could assume supremacy over the new members just because they were here longer. Then there was Brendan, a truly smart yet composed guarding angel to the new members. His level of knowledge was/is far beyond what can I can describe with my vocabulary. I remember Solar calling him a "forum god" once, so that pretty much tells you what his level of knowledge was/is.

Apparently, time has changed. Going over the thread where this mess started, it is now evident that Brendan no longer possesses the composure he did back then. I wonder what happened to him. It seemed as if all this was a deliberate attempt to get out of this forum. Regardless, he will be missed.

As to the question whether Brendan should be allowed back into this forum as a regular user, I very much doubt he will be willing to accept that offer. His ego got a pretty bad hit.

I have to say that I am not convinced that giving fulsome answers to newbie's questions (a la Brendan) is necessarily the best approach. I worry that spoon-feeding in this way stifles creativity and doesn't encourage people to think, and research, for themselves. It obviously reaches a crescendo when it becomes a matter of arguing with someone else's ideas, rather than just helping to impart knowledge, to the extent of using moderator's powers to ban someone you disagree with.

I'm more in favour of asking leading questions, pointing out reference material, and nudging people in the right direction - leading rather than directing. Knowledge that is sometimes imparted in forum posts belongs far more comfortably in the Wiki.

iansjack wrote:I have to say that I am not convinced that giving fulsome answers to newbie's questions (a la Brendan) is necessarily the best approach.

Definitely not always, but people often ask questions that require an expertise of a master to craft an answer highlighting the subtle details. You can not always reply with "Refer to the manuals", you know. Manuals often allow for multiple design choices, and not all choices are equal.

iansjack wrote:I worry that spoon-feeding in this way stifles creativity and doesn't encourage people to think, and research, for themselves.

I'm no fan of spoon-feeding myself; I, however, disagree that responding with a well-structured, meticulously composed and sometimes even esoteric answer is "spoon-feeding" in any way. If that is the case, pointing anyone to read the Intel documentation would also be "spoon-feeding" (manuals, at least the good ones, are well-structured and composed).

iansjack wrote:I'm more in favour of asking leading questions, pointing out reference material, and nudging people in the right direction - leading rather than directing. Knowledge that is sometimes imparted in forum posts belongs far more comfortably in the Wiki.

I couldn't agree more on this one.

I want to make it clear that I'm not condoning Brendan's actions (in particular, his abuse of moderator privileges). I'm just surprised his long presence in this forum would come to an end this way.

Yo,

I don't know when it became obvious that @Solar was a particularly valuable member of the forum, or that his answers to questions were authoritative; my recollection of Solar from the 2014-or-so era when he was active is that he had a decent knowledge of the C specification, but he had no technical knowledge on any hardware platform or processor architecture and was mostly a fluff contributor. I considered him to be an "interesting opinion editorialiser" and not a useful source of information, and I don't recall learning one thing from him; I also don't recall having categorized him in my mind as having expertise in any niche area related to kernel dev.

As far as I can tell, he vomited out another "curious" opinion in the Esoteric Languages thread, but it was nothing particularly profound and I'm wondering how anybody could have concluded that, value for value, it could have been a good outcome to ban Brendan and keep Solar. If Brendan abused powers, then disciplining Brendan is one thing, but I don't see how anybody could possibly justify this outcome.

--Peace out

gravaera wrote:Yo,

I don't know when it became obvious that @Solar was a particularly valuable member of the forum, or that his answers to questions were authoritative; my recollection of Solar from the 2014-or-so era when he was active is that he had a decent knowledge of the C specification, but he had no technical knowledge on any hardware platform or processor architecture and was mostly a fluff contributor. I considered him to be an "interesting opinion editorialiser" and not a useful source of information, and I don't recall learning one thing from him; I also don't recall having categorized him in my mind as having expertise in any niche area related to kernel dev.

As far as I can tell, he vomited out another "curious" opinion in the Esoteric Languages thread, but it was nothing particularly profound and I'm wondering how anybody could have concluded that, value for value, it could have been a good outcome to ban Brendan and keep Solar. If Brendan abused powers, then disciplining Brendan is one thing, but I don't see how anybody could possibly justify this outcome.

--Peace out

Brendan insisted that if he wasn't allowed to do anything he wanted as mod without regard to the rules of the site then Chase (site owner) should ban him. The outcome was between him and Chase and has nothing to do with Solar or anyone else.

He used his mod powers to pursue personal bugbears, the community told his this wasn't acceptable but the only person asking for Brendan to be banned was Brendan.

@gravaera: Why drag this up after all this time? And why start being so rude about a valuable contributor?

Brendan made his decision, and it seems to have been the best solution for everyone. Let it rest.