A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
Moderator: General Moderators
Not that my opinion matters much seeing as I have not been here TOO long. So far, this is a nice place. I haven't seen any rude remarks made to me or anyone thus far. I've been to a forum just like this, but for C++ questions, and I like it here far better. Not only is your question "usually" answered within 2 hours of posting, the answers are helpfull, and the people are, for the most part, nice.
You can't have everything be perfect. This is not a perfect world, will never be a perfect world, and you can't expect every one of the thousands of users here to be perfect. It just won't happen. And it must be pretty damn hard to moderate every post that comes in here, seeing as there are... ALOT.
You can't have everything be perfect. This is not a perfect world, will never be a perfect world, and you can't expect every one of the thousands of users here to be perfect. It just won't happen. And it must be pretty damn hard to moderate every post that comes in here, seeing as there are... ALOT.
Re: A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
With what do you base this on? A couple of your own (and the ones you mention) posts? Have you actually read about 2000+ posts before making your judgement?Brian wrote:Since the moderators of these forums are so welcoming of blatant disregard of their own guidelines and since some of them are either unwilling or unable to participate in courteous, intelligent--or at least well-considered--discussion (most particularly, patrikG and the particularly rude and inappropriately emotional Sami), I propose a boycott of these forums.
I personally keep deleting my pm's due to the mass amount of Thank-You messages. I also have had my share of "You suck <insert animal here>" messages also, but I can take that as all of them have been concrete and actually telling me what made them dislike me...
...while looking at the below...Brian wrote:...cut... Unfortunately, though, that seems to be too much to ask with people such as Unipus, patrikG, and Sami using the forums, so I propose that all who value courtesy in forum discussions join me in boycotting PHPDN until such time as courtesy is valued and enforced by the moderators.
Interesting...andre_c wrote:I'm curious, does anyone actually agree with Brian that the moderators "welcome disregard of the guidelines" or that any of them are rude?
I truly get the feeling that you yourself know that there is alot of users that think that we (or the moderators mentioned) are so bad, that the forum needs to be boycotted. I myself never in my time here have had that feeling (yes, oddly as you might find it I belive) so if anyone else share the same feeling as Brian here, please speak up (a PM is allright if you dont feel like posting it in the public).
Re: A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
I held off, hoping the thread would die, but it clearly won't, so I'll comment.JAM wrote:so if anyone else share the same feeling as Brian here, please speak up (a PM is allright if you dont feel like posting it in the public).
While I think Brian was absolutely, totally, completely wrong about the thread he got upset about, I do think he brought up a slightly-valid concern.
I think the moderators are human, and thats a good thing.
There are occasions and routines that I think the moderators fall into too easily. For example, anytime ANYONE posts anything to EITHER the volunteer section, or the job postings, within 4 hours (max), a mod will reply, and will almost always imply that the poster is lying about what they are offering.
In-and-of-itself, a single incident is a moderator being protective of new programmers here. Thats a good thing.
However, it has become truly epidemic. The rules for both forums need to be rewritten, and the questions need to be asked via PM's if it is unclear. Then the posting needs to be moved to the appropriate forum based on the response.
Why? Because then it isnt so overwhelmingly hostile to posters. I count at least 6 different posts where the vast majority of the conversation is related to whether the post is appropriate or not. Thats a clear sign that the rules are not clearly written - even if they are (now) being consistently enforced.
I read the rules, and it could use clarifying. As it is, *I* would never post to the volunteer section, even if I knew I would be clearly stating that.. its simply way too hostile.
Further, there are flat-out cases of "baiting" a user - for example, viewtopic.php?t=20633 .
There was a valid code question, and the mod asked a very leading question. The truth is, there is a valid reason to want such code, and it *shouldnt matter* if he wants to do bad things with it! Its a discussion about PHP, and could be used for appropriate items, and thus the presumption should be that its a worthwhile conversation.. not that the user is negative and trying to attack the world.
Any information can be used negatively, and any post can 'fool' a new programmer into false hopes about riches from a small project.
So, I do agree with Brian that there is a slight tendency to see the negative, and get over-zealous in prevention.
Thats human nature after being a mod for as long as some of the mods here have been. However, it doesn't hurt to work to improve those issues by mentioning it here, and so I am.
I think there is room for improvement, but unlike Brian, I rate these forums a strong B+, heading to A+.
Hope thats not taken the wrong way - just mentioning my opinion, since several posts asked for us to share.
The Job and Volunteer's Forum have sparked quite a vivid debate amongst moderators recently and there should be new and clearer guidelines in place shortly.
I believe that Brian was not referring to that, however, (see viewtopic.php?t=20640), but to a single thread where the discussion dragged on and on and on a bit.
I believe that Brian was not referring to that, however, (see viewtopic.php?t=20640), but to a single thread where the discussion dragged on and on and on a bit.
Re: A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
Gaaaaaaah! You...gngh...Roja wrote:Hope thats not taken the wrong way - just mentioning my opinion, since several posts asked for us to share.
Just kidding ;). You do make sence in the post as we (regular visitors) have seen issues in the various areas of the forum. And trust me, this is not lightly discussed in moderators part of the forum.
I do want you and others to post issues (in a concrete way as this) as the moderators continues the discussion with eachother, trying to figure out a solution.
I do belive that the "You talk and say this - I listen and hear that" clearly mention a great deal on how we as people understand eachother. So it's not neccessary that one is wrong and the others right, just two sides of the story. Worth thinking about. Especially when PHPDN are global in the sence that I'm swede, another is from from Israel, China etc. etc...
Nope, he wasnt. I said that much. I just brought up concrete examples that triggered MY opinion.patrikG wrote: I believe that Brian was not referring to that, however, (see viewtopic.php?t=20640), but to a single thread where the discussion dragged on and on and on a bit.
Re: A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
Oh, I am absolutely aware, and totally agree. I was only sharing my point of view because the posts asked for it. As I said, I feel the moderation here is generally excellent, and the few flaws I see are very human, and not a reflection of any 'vast conspiracy'. I just think there is room for improvement.JAM wrote: I do belive that the "You talk and say this - I listen and hear that" clearly mention a great deal on how we as people understand eachother. So it's not neccessary that one is wrong and the others right, just two sides of the story.
You're right - he wasn't only referring to that one, but also the "woa woa tables"-thread in the client-side forum which was what seemed to have sparked off his general annoyance with the forum.Roja wrote:Nope, he wasnt. I said that much.patrikG wrote: I believe that Brian was not referring to that, however, (see viewtopic.php?t=20640), but to a single thread where the discussion dragged on and on and on a bit.
Yes, and thanks for the feedbackRoja wrote:I just brought up concrete examples that triggered MY opinion.
We're working on new guidelines for the two forums (see post my post above)
I would like to offer up a background regarding the moderators, the forums, how I try to run things here, and how things happen.
The first rule of these forums is that I don't really run things. I try not to, and unless there is a major problem, I try to keep out of imposing a singular view on things. Some people may disagree on whether I have succeeded or not, but I try.
The second thing to remember is that I have always tried to value the opinion of everyone. "Majority rules, minority rights" as the saying goes. Even if someone has an opinion counter to mine, I try to listen to this person. I try not to disregard their opinion, and try to rationalize what they are saying. This means that sometimes I was right, and other times I was wrong.
The third thing to remember is that the moderators have all earned their position through trust. This means they didn't just appear out of no where, and suddenly they attained the rank of moderator. They were recognized for the efforts they put in, and we provided them with the tools to do more. But don't forget that the moderators are human, and will make mistakes.
Keeping the forums clean is the end goal of all moderators. This means stopping the garbage before it starts.
Of course, as these forums grow, more and more people will disagree on what is and what isn't garbage. Garbage is not on topic. Garbage is insulting banter back and forth. Garbage is a flamewar.
Unfortunately, we have all been apart of these at one point or another (even myself). This is human nature. Being called a Moderator hopefully means we ask ourselves "Whoa, should a Moderator be doing something like this?" Sometimes we forget. Such is life. No one is innocent, and anyone claiming to be is most definetly guilty.
Finally, a moderator will make enemies if he does his job well. A moderator, by very definition, is someone who will cut other people off. And when the moderator cuts this person off, it's most likely because this person was getting emotional, and more importantly, rude.
Now, just because you don't think you were being rude doesn't mean you were being polite. Communication is a two-way road. If someone infers that you were being rude or insulting, you were. Most of the time, it's not the readers fault. Most of the time, the reader is right, in fact.
Anyways, so hopefully some of this clears up any potential confusion about moderators, and give us a base to work on.
Now, for my overall opinion of the matter.
First, I think Brian's solution to the problem (boycotting the forum to make sure people are courteous) is poor. In fact, it won't solve anything. You could simply assume that if no one is being rude in the forum, than the boycott will have to end. Of course, if people are boycotting the forum, they are not posting (because of the nature of a boycott). Thus, any boycott would be immediatly successful.
The other way to look at this is that for the boycott to be successful, it would require people to leave. These people would not return until things were solved. However, if after leaving, things were solved, would could say that it was those boycotting the forums that were the cause of the problem. The problem wasn't solved until after they left. This would be especially damaging if after they returned, the problem appeared again.
Obviously, I don't believe either of these two conclusions. I just find them funny, and a weird way of twisting logic to one's own means. And hopefully, it will lighten the mood.
Anyways, Roja presented some good points in a civil manner. Honestly, what added a lot of credibility to what he said was his picture. Roja, is that you in the picture? (Adding a picture adds credibility. It's the familiarity of seeing someone face to face. Many people far smarter than I have confirmed this. Google for it if you want, but adding a picture of a person on a website increases trust)
First, there is the "problem" with the volunteer section. Yeah, we moderators may be a jaded bunch, but it's not because we are out to get people. The question is: If you know something doesn't sound right, should the moderators not say something? They are moderators, which means they are users with extra powers on the forums. It doesn't mean they are aren't allowed to use the forums like the used to.
I agree, our moderators can be 'over-zealous in prevention'. But the other problem is being 'under-zealous', and we have another problem: too much garbage.
I will be honest and say that I have encouraged people to take appropriate action, and in a sense, be over-protective. This means that every once in a while, we will get a false-positive. Someone with good intentions will post, and they will get slammed. This is unfortunate.
Brian had made the suggestion of ratings, and generally allowing people to voice their opinions about people. This is an idea, of course, but one which would require a lot of hacking time (not necessarily a problem, but it still will require real work).
So the question I pose is not whether or not a problem exists, but what the solution to preventing this problem is.
Let's assume the problem does exist. That's great, but it doesn't solve the problem. Rather than debate the problem, let's get around to solving it.
If we assume the problem doesn't exist, let's decide what we can do to prevent it.
I firmly believe that the solution is the same regardless of the status of the problem.
Maybe the solution is the status-quo. Maybe it's but a wee-bit more. Maybe it really is me hacking into the forum a system to rate people. But what is the solution?
However, we should be careful about putting anything into practice. We can't please all the people all the time, and anyone with a desire to do so would do well to remember that it won't ever happen. Someone will always be left feeling slighted.
On the Side: I recently read a book named the "Watchmen." It's an illustrated book (a comic book, if you will), and in it, the question is posed "Who watches the Watchmen?" The Watchmen were superheroes, people with extraordinary abilities, but were still people that could make choices.
I find the theme fits perfectly here. The moderators are people that have earned their trust, and yet, they are apt to make mistakes. We all do.
The first rule of these forums is that I don't really run things. I try not to, and unless there is a major problem, I try to keep out of imposing a singular view on things. Some people may disagree on whether I have succeeded or not, but I try.
The second thing to remember is that I have always tried to value the opinion of everyone. "Majority rules, minority rights" as the saying goes. Even if someone has an opinion counter to mine, I try to listen to this person. I try not to disregard their opinion, and try to rationalize what they are saying. This means that sometimes I was right, and other times I was wrong.
The third thing to remember is that the moderators have all earned their position through trust. This means they didn't just appear out of no where, and suddenly they attained the rank of moderator. They were recognized for the efforts they put in, and we provided them with the tools to do more. But don't forget that the moderators are human, and will make mistakes.
Keeping the forums clean is the end goal of all moderators. This means stopping the garbage before it starts.
Of course, as these forums grow, more and more people will disagree on what is and what isn't garbage. Garbage is not on topic. Garbage is insulting banter back and forth. Garbage is a flamewar.
Unfortunately, we have all been apart of these at one point or another (even myself). This is human nature. Being called a Moderator hopefully means we ask ourselves "Whoa, should a Moderator be doing something like this?" Sometimes we forget. Such is life. No one is innocent, and anyone claiming to be is most definetly guilty.
Finally, a moderator will make enemies if he does his job well. A moderator, by very definition, is someone who will cut other people off. And when the moderator cuts this person off, it's most likely because this person was getting emotional, and more importantly, rude.
Now, just because you don't think you were being rude doesn't mean you were being polite. Communication is a two-way road. If someone infers that you were being rude or insulting, you were. Most of the time, it's not the readers fault. Most of the time, the reader is right, in fact.
Anyways, so hopefully some of this clears up any potential confusion about moderators, and give us a base to work on.
Now, for my overall opinion of the matter.
First, I think Brian's solution to the problem (boycotting the forum to make sure people are courteous) is poor. In fact, it won't solve anything. You could simply assume that if no one is being rude in the forum, than the boycott will have to end. Of course, if people are boycotting the forum, they are not posting (because of the nature of a boycott). Thus, any boycott would be immediatly successful.
The other way to look at this is that for the boycott to be successful, it would require people to leave. These people would not return until things were solved. However, if after leaving, things were solved, would could say that it was those boycotting the forums that were the cause of the problem. The problem wasn't solved until after they left. This would be especially damaging if after they returned, the problem appeared again.
Obviously, I don't believe either of these two conclusions. I just find them funny, and a weird way of twisting logic to one's own means. And hopefully, it will lighten the mood.
Anyways, Roja presented some good points in a civil manner. Honestly, what added a lot of credibility to what he said was his picture. Roja, is that you in the picture? (Adding a picture adds credibility. It's the familiarity of seeing someone face to face. Many people far smarter than I have confirmed this. Google for it if you want, but adding a picture of a person on a website increases trust)
First, there is the "problem" with the volunteer section. Yeah, we moderators may be a jaded bunch, but it's not because we are out to get people. The question is: If you know something doesn't sound right, should the moderators not say something? They are moderators, which means they are users with extra powers on the forums. It doesn't mean they are aren't allowed to use the forums like the used to.
I agree, our moderators can be 'over-zealous in prevention'. But the other problem is being 'under-zealous', and we have another problem: too much garbage.
I will be honest and say that I have encouraged people to take appropriate action, and in a sense, be over-protective. This means that every once in a while, we will get a false-positive. Someone with good intentions will post, and they will get slammed. This is unfortunate.
Brian had made the suggestion of ratings, and generally allowing people to voice their opinions about people. This is an idea, of course, but one which would require a lot of hacking time (not necessarily a problem, but it still will require real work).
So the question I pose is not whether or not a problem exists, but what the solution to preventing this problem is.
Let's assume the problem does exist. That's great, but it doesn't solve the problem. Rather than debate the problem, let's get around to solving it.
If we assume the problem doesn't exist, let's decide what we can do to prevent it.
I firmly believe that the solution is the same regardless of the status of the problem.
Maybe the solution is the status-quo. Maybe it's but a wee-bit more. Maybe it really is me hacking into the forum a system to rate people. But what is the solution?
However, we should be careful about putting anything into practice. We can't please all the people all the time, and anyone with a desire to do so would do well to remember that it won't ever happen. Someone will always be left feeling slighted.
On the Side: I recently read a book named the "Watchmen." It's an illustrated book (a comic book, if you will), and in it, the question is posed "Who watches the Watchmen?" The Watchmen were superheroes, people with extraordinary abilities, but were still people that could make choices.
I find the theme fits perfectly here. The moderators are people that have earned their trust, and yet, they are apt to make mistakes. We all do.
Re: A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
I've been most guilty of this. Here's why.Roja wrote:.. anytime ANYONE posts anything to EITHER the volunteer section, or the job postings, within 4 hours (max), a mod will reply, and will almost always imply that the poster is lying about what they are offering.
You need to be aware that there many people in the world more than willing to take advantage of others who act in good faith. It's easy to forget just how manipulative and exploitative people can be.
The standard line of "I can't afford to pay you now but will pay later/give you a share of the profits/free webhosting etc" is designed to exploit the gullible. Either it's an outright scam or the poster is just a bit "wide" as we say in the UK. All the risk is transferred to the programmer. The site may not succeed and so the the programmer has no guarantee of getting paid.
This is what's known as an "abusive relationship". It's insulting to our intelligence and reveals a huge lack of respect for other people. I believe we should protect members from this kind of thing.
As mentioned, this is all under discussion. The points I'm pushing are:
(1) Posts with promises to pay later will not be allowed.
(2) In Job Hunt the poster must state a price: either for the full job or an hourly rate. If not, the post will be deleted. Everyone can at least provide a range from which to start negotiating.
(3) Businesses will not be allowed to request volunteer help. Charities, not-for-profit sites, or sites with which the programmer shares a common interest - no problem - but a business will profit financially from the coders work and must be prepared to pay for it.
Questions were asked in a neutral way without making assumptions. If there are good answers - no problem. If not then it will be deal with as necessary. That's my job.Roja wrote:Further, there are flat-out cases of "baiting" a user - for example, viewtopic.php?t=20633 .
There was a valid code question, and the mod asked a very leading question. The truth is, there is a valid reason to want such code, and it *shouldnt matter* if he wants to do bad things with it!
It most certainly DOES matter if someone wants to do bad things
Yup. It is me. There are other more interesting pictures of me as well.. but thats what I chose for this forum.. it matches both my current appearance and my tone when I am here - polite, happy, and helpful.jason wrote: Anyways, Roja presented some good points in a civil manner. Honestly, what added a lot of credibility to what he said was his picture. Roja, is that you in the picture?
In other forums, I have a picture of me coming out of a limo, dressed to the nines in a tux, long hair flapping, arms very clearly tensed up, with an expression that makes clear that you do NOT want to anger the 250+ lbs sleeping bear.
Different impressions for different forums. On those forums, I am usually under attack, insulted, and expected to put up with people's crap (I dont).
Why all the detail? The point I'm making is that here, I'm smiling. Thats a serious statement about my feelings on these forums. Its a solid B+, with minor room for improvement.
Assumptions do one thing..jason wrote: Let's assume the problem does exist. That's great, but it doesn't solve the problem. Rather than debate the problem, let's get around to solving it.
We have the technology to find out, so use it. Put a poll, no comments allowed, asking if users feel the current forum moderation is "Fine as is", "Needs improvement", or "Is horrible".
Simple, easy, effective.
Then we can determine how bad it is.. might be 1-5 users feel its horrible, and thats not worth redoing teh whole site for. However, might be that 90% are uncomfortable speaking out.. never know.
But thinking ahead on how to fix it.. "Karma" or user-rating systems do three things:
- Create a popularity contest
- Insult newcomers
- Waste time
Notice that reducing bad posts isnt on the list? Look at slashdot. They have moderation, meta-moderation, and you STILL have to filter to get rid of the noise. It doesnt accomplish that goal, only filtering does.
If you are considering filtering, I'd suggest a poll for that.
Re: A Boycott to Protest Forum Discourtesy
I am aware - but the way it is currently handled isn't allowing people who act in good faith to comply. The rules need rewritten, and it sounds as if I'm preaching to a choir thats already singing.. The mod team has discussed it in private, and concrete changes are coming.McGruff wrote:You need to be aware that there many people in the world more than willing to take advantage of others who act in good faith. It's easy to forget just how manipulative and exploitative people can be.Roja wrote:.. anytime ANYONE posts anything to EITHER the volunteer section, or the job postings, within 4 hours (max), a mod will reply, and will almost always imply that the poster is lying about what they are offering.
Doesn't change the past-tense actions that favored the view that "most are evil", which is a bad outlook and philosophy to take.. even if it is (in those two forums) fairly accurate in most cases.
The example rule changes you listed would all meet "reasonable definitions" that could be followed.. imho.
But it wasnt neccesary, and the ONLY point was to discover the user's intent - and thats not needed.McGruff wrote:Questions were asked in a neutral way without making assumptions. If there are good answers - no problem. If not then it will be deal with as necessary. That's my job.Roja wrote:Further, there are flat-out cases of "baiting" a user - for example, viewtopic.php?t=20633 .
There was a valid code question, and the mod asked a very leading question. The truth is, there is a valid reason to want such code, and it *shouldnt matter* if he wants to do bad things with it!
I disagree.McGruff wrote: It most certainly DOES matter if someone wants to do bad things. We are not here to teach hackers their craft.
This is a php forum - he asked a question about how php works. Whether the person uses fsockopen to kill small baby seals, or to cure world hunger, the QUESTION is valid, appropriate, and asked in the correct place.
Just like someone asking how they can send mass mails shouldnt EVERY SINGLE TIME have to preface their post with "Im not a spammer", the poster shouldnt have even been asked why..
Is this a forum for learning about php, or not? If so, intent doesnt matter.
If its a place to teach people the 'right' things to DO with php, I think the forums need a redefinition (and I would stop coming). The slope of definition on whats "okay" and whats not is both steep, and infinite.
The techonology is the only issue. PHP doesnt have a license that says "thou shalt not X", so why should these forums?
Here's one recent example. Someone asked for help on how to circumvent access retrictions in place on another site. I deleted a couple of replies and closed the topic. We cannot and should not provide a platform for that sort of thing.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Three responses:McGruff wrote:Here's one recent example. Someone asked for help on how to circumvent access retrictions in place on another site. I deleted a couple of replies and closed the topic. We cannot and should not provide a platform for that sort of thing.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here.
1. The poster did NOT ask a php question. He asked how to change his ip address in windows (essentially). Thats off-topic, so by staying within charter, you could have done the same without intent mattering - bad example.
2. The user could have been reported to the site in question, and by doing so, the admins would have been alerted that he was looking for a way around it.. if he asked here, he surely asked elsewhere, and he may have figured it out on his own.. in either case, there is a higher value to the admins of that site of knowing he is asking than if he didnt post here at all.
3. Slippery slope begins - Since this is "not okay", whats the definition? Is mass-mailing by its definition bad? Is fsockopen by definition bad? What about code that requires register_globals? Each is a security issue.. each with varying levels of "BAD". Where do you draw the line? Further, if I ask a question the right way (ie, LIE), I can ask about how to do port-scanning, but if I'm an honest bad guy ("Naughty question" as the title indeed), you lock the thread? This encourages users to be dishonest, when a little encouragement could do a lot more than a sledgehammer of denial.
As someone who works in Information Security, I'm all for bad guys coming and asking honestly how to be bad. At worst, they'll get an answer, and I'll need to *do my job competently*. At best, the community will encourage them not to do such a thing, and they'll be educated.
This *IS* an education site, right?