Author Topic: Shortcomings of DC and How to Improve (Read 138,476 times)

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #125 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:30 AM »

Quote from: wraith808 on March 07, 2011, 02:24 AM

Quote from: banmenot on March 07, 2011, 02:07 AM
ROFLMAO looks like some mod got trigger happy a while ago and banned my lotus username:

I can't remember how many times mouser actually asked mods not to ban people and not to stifle free speech. It's quite counter-productive and benefits no one (check my comment on the link):

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/during-march-new-free-utility-or-other-goodie-every-day.htm
(see attachment in previous post)

If you're actually concerned with improving the site, then why air dirty laundry like this on some other site? Why not contact mouser directly? I'm sure you know he doesn't condone this as long as you've been around- you even say so above. Are you trying to help or hurt? Because such perceptions on another site are sure to hurt... I now really do question your intent.

People out there has the right to know that over the years we have developed such a censorship. Actions of the mods do reflect the much of mentality of the site, after all most of them are the very senior members on this forum, are they not?

No need to hide the dirt, no need to even try.

rgdot · « **Reply #126 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:49 AM »

Thanks for commenting on my site lotusrootstarch. I can't comment on the very specifics because I am not exactly the most regular here.
No matter those specifics, if they exist at all, I think DC offers a lot to its members and the internet at large.

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #127 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:52 AM »

Thanks rgdot please remove my comment asap. There's no smear campaign going on here as I have neither the intent nor time (stacks of movies and wine bottles here to be consumed), as long as the mod learns his lesson and make DC a better place I'm good.

mouser · « **Reply #128 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:53 AM »

lotus should *not* have been banned. you are now ~~unbanned.~~

actually i couldn't see that you were banned.. maybe someone unbanned you already or maybe it was a ban on ip? i'm not sure.

rgdot · « **Reply #129 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:55 AM »

No problem, will remove

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #130 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:00 AM »

Quote from: mouser on March 07, 2011, 02:53 AM

lotus should *not* have been banned. you are now ~~unbanned.~~

actually i couldn't see that you were banned.. maybe someone unbanned you already or maybe it was a ban on ip? i'm not sure.

Thanks mouser. I was unbanned a while ago, very shortly after I had to register yet another username (can you believe it!?) to protest about the ban:

[attach]

wraith808 · « **Reply #131 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:26 AM »

Quote from: lotusrootstarch on March 07, 2011, 02:30 AM

Quote from: wraith808 on March 07, 2011, 02:24 AM
Quote from: banmenot on March 07, 2011, 02:07 AM
ROFLMAO looks like some mod got trigger happy a while ago and banned my lotus username:

I can't remember how many times mouser actually asked mods not to ban people and not to stifle free speech. It's quite counter-productive and benefits no one (check my comment on the link):

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/during-march-new-free-utility-or-other-goodie-every-day.htm
(see attachment in previous post)

If you're actually concerned with improving the site, then why air dirty laundry like this on some other site? Why not contact mouser directly? I'm sure you know he doesn't condone this as long as you've been around- you even say so above. Are you trying to help or hurt? Because such perceptions on another site are sure to hurt... I now really do question your intent.

People out there has the right to know that over the years we have developed such a censorship. Actions of the mods do reflect the much of mentality of the site, after all most of them are the very senior members on this forum, are they not?

No need to hide the dirt, no need to even try.

It could have been an error, it could have been any number of things. But did you even *try* to contact a mod (or better yet, mouser) before posting that?

Though I have been one of the people who wondered why you posted under a pseudonym, I'm now very glad that you did. I consider the regular members of DC above this pettiness, and it would make me very sad to know that this kind of behavior would come from one of the people I've come to respect (if not know... this shows how little we truly know anyone on the internet

).

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #132 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:39 AM »

wraith808:
Did I state any false in the comment that I made?

Trust me I've been admins and mods on a few SMF forums and the message was the result of "human action", not "error". There's a log that you can check in the admin area in SMF if you really want out the truth.

Did you just suggest that I should contact a mod here who might just be the one who banned me? Gotta watch less cartoons mate.

Well since you choose to respect people who take covert actions than someone like me who speaks out, I'm not sure we should have further issues with each other.

p.s. Speak of which, this incident also makes me pretty sad how little we truly know anyone on the internet, even on a site as nice as DC. You are not the only one that felt sadness.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #133 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:55 AM »

Oh dear, oh dear!

Someone seems to be trying very hard to be tiresome. Let's not squabble. There are enough of us here to decide whether and how changes will be made, and no one voice is likely to prevail, no matter how shrill.

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #134 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:04 AM »

Yeah, that's the spirit Chris!

I didn't even post again in the last few days because the feedback from other members during the time was pretty sufficient and there wasn't much for me to add... until this ban.

It's time for calmness and constructive comments to return to this thread.

Dormouse · « **Reply #135 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:05 AM »

Quote from: lotusrootstarch on March 07, 2011, 03:39 AM

Well since you choose to respect people who take covert actions than someone like me who speaks out,

I'd've thought a hidden identity was covert

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #136 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:08 AM »

Quote from: Dormouse on March 07, 2011, 04:05 AM

Quote from: lotusrootstarch on March 07, 2011, 03:39 AM
Well since you choose to respect people who take covert actions than someone like me who speaks out,

I'd've thought a hidden identity was covert

Or maybe my previous identity could have been banned in "error"? Haven't checked in a while, cant say for sure. Ah anyways cant be bothered to check right now. Love this username gonna stick to it.

Now if you think about it:
If there's a global moderator (among the only few here) who's so eager to shield this site from any negative impression during the fundraiser as to ban me and to stifle unwelcome comments, what makes you surprised that my views have faced so much opposition in this thread from senior members, and that I made a great decision to post under a pseudonym?

barney · « **Reply #137 on:** March 07, 2011, 05:18 AM »

Quote from: cranioscopical on March 07, 2011, 03:55 AM

Oh dear, oh dear!

Someone seems to be trying very hard to be tiresome. Let's not squabble. There are enough of us here to decide whether and how changes will be made, and no one voice is likely to prevail, no matter how shrill.

That brings to mind an old proverb, don't know the origin, " Who speaks with the loudest voice has least to say."

This whole series is reminiscent of the advent of Web 2.0. Suddenly everyone was eager to update their sites to the new standard. However, a number of high-traffic sites didn't jump on that bandwagon, and there was no significant diminution of traffic as a result

. By that same token, appearance-wise, most forae haven't changed much, but they're still active. If we enjoy a site, we return, regardless the appearance. Frankly, I'm not all that certain that I'd enjoy converse with someone attracted only by appearance - anyone that interested in ephemerals prolly wouldn't have an outlook that would be attractive to me

. The important part of any site is the meat of it, the content contained therein.

There's been comment about the home page, but I'd never seen it until this thread. I came in through a side door, either CHS or Mobysaurus or Form Letter Machine. Since then, I've come in through RSS feeds. So I'm not all that certain the home page is a significant issue. Update, sure, if it pleases, but check the logs, see how many use it, whether its worth the effort

.

My attitude is that if you want to make changes, I'll contribute as best as I can. However, I tend to work within the limits of a thing rather than complain of missing functionality. (I'm a lousy beta tester

.) So does a third of the rest of the world - more on that another time, perhaps - so change for the sake of change is well nigh antithetical.

If operational change is needed, make it; if change is cosmetic, think about it. But do consider the workforce, particularly in regard to cosmetic change which is oft more onerous than functional change.

(If this is somewhat incoherent $:-\$ , that's because I'm somewhat inebriated

... but not enough to dis-enable rationality (I thimk!)

.)

nosh · « **Reply #138 on:** March 07, 2011, 05:26 AM »

Quote

I'm not all that certain that I'd enjoy converse with someone attracted only by appearance

I would.

I suggest we have a large Scarlett Johansson background for the front page and everyone goes home happy. Truth be told, I prefer Leelee Sobieski, but she's not as famous.

Anyone? Anyone?

lotusrootstarch · « **Reply #139 on:** March 07, 2011, 05:31 AM »

LOL

I see we are building an Internet archive here (who needs www.archive.org anyway if you have something that stays the same!?) - everyday is a day back in time!

Who needs to revamp the apps if C++ are here to stay for the next 20 years at least, the code still compiles. Forum software? screw it, php4 might hopefully maintain itself for a long time to come. And no need to worry about the new techs on the interwebs because web is meant for porn not the rest.

Who needs to attract new members to join the forum, huh? We've got 300 active members and 235,001 inactive members and growing, that's GREAT stats! No need to worry until the old members retire.

Anyone?

PhilB66 · « **Reply #140 on:** March 07, 2011, 07:41 AM »

Now, that's a tough one...

[attach]

nosh · « **Reply #141 on:** March 07, 2011, 08:28 AM »

Poll tiem!

Ath · « **Reply #142 on:** March 07, 2011, 09:40 AM »

Both would be just fine, IMHO

barney · « **Reply #143 on:** March 07, 2011, 02:53 PM »

Quote from: nosh on March 07, 2011, 05:26 AM

Quote
I'm not all that certain that I'd enjoy converse with someone attracted only by appearance

I would.

@nosh, @PhilB66, @Ath,
You've all been moved to the questionable conversation list

.

Ath · « **Reply #144 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:07 PM »

Quote from: barney on March 07, 2011, 02:53 PM

@nosh, @PhilB66, @Ath,
You've all been moved to the questionable conversation list .

Why, because we are (hetro) males that like the looks of these fine young-ladies?

nosh · « **Reply #145 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:27 PM »

I suspected we would all be found answerable for our actions.

mouser · « **Reply #146 on:** March 07, 2011, 03:40 PM »

I like to see when we can turn negativity into opportunities to improve and have fun -- I think it's an important part of living a good life.

Now regarding banning users.. We have to ban several users per day for trying to spam the forum -- usually by sticking advertising links in their profiles that no one ever sees -- so there is plenty of banning that happens, but never for anything other than advertisement spamming.

Now.. Every forum has different policies for how to handle people that the moderators think are just interested in disrupting things and upsetting people; my belief is that banning should be used as a very last resort and is almost never needed (the only time might be if someone is constantly posting stuff they have been asked not to over and over and won't stop). I think these things tend to run their course and that people should be allowed to have their say, even if we disagree with them.

Sometimes it can feel like a person is making personal attacks or is just attempting to make the site look bad to new visitors -- and that's where some moderators tend to think that a ban is appropriate -- as a way of showing that we are not on the "side" of the attacker. And sometimes i know that others on the forum wish someone would be banned because they judge that person has no aims other than to cause trouble and is harming the positive tone of the site -- and they plead with mods that someone be banned.

As good intentioned as the mods are in these cases, i maintain that banning people in cases like this, just like locking/deleting disruptive threads, often just exacerbates the problem, and so best to just let things run their course and try to make lemonade out of lemons.

Looks like this was a case of a mod just trying to protect the forum by banning lotus; as well intentioned as it was, i removed the ban when i was told about it just because i don't think it solves anything.

It's not the first time (and won't be the laste) that we've banned someone and removed the ban when cooler heads prevailed. Or deleted/locked a post when we realize later we shouldn't have. It's not a conspiracy just a normal consequence of having human beings making the judgment calls when it comes to moderating the site. When we make mistakes we try to correct them

Now back to the Scarlett Johanssons and Leelee Sobieskis.. Is someone suggesting we hire them to do the website redesign? Or replace Cody as our new spokespeople? I'll discuss the idea with the moderators and we'll discuss a severance package for Cody should he be made redundant. Please have them call me to schedule an interview. I will try to find some time to meet with them and discuss possible positions.

rgdot · « **Reply #147 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:10 PM »

Quote from: mouser on March 07, 2011, 03:40 PM

Now back to the Scarlett Johanssons and Leelee Sobieskis.. Is someone suggesting we hire them to do the website redesign? Or replace Cody as our new spokespeople? I'll discuss the idea with the moderators and we'll discuss a severance package for Cody should he be made redundant. Please have them call me to schedule an interview. I will try to find some time to meet with them and discuss possible positions.

With them you wouldn't need a redesign, just their presence...
Speaking of which I would suggest her instead

mahesh2k · « **Reply #148 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:28 PM »

Quote

Please have them call me to schedule an interview. I will try to find some time to meet with them and discuss possible positions.

I want 'babe of the day' mod on doco forums and this is serious request

barney · « **Reply #149 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:51 PM »

Quote from: Ath on March 07, 2011, 03:07 PM

Quote from: barney on March 07, 2011, 02:53 PM
@nosh, @PhilB66, @Ath,
You've all been moved to the questionable conversation list .
Why, because we are (hetro) males that like the looks of these fine young-ladies?

Nope.

'Cause you're judging by appearance

, not content

.
'Sides, while you are hetero males, I seem to recall a few distaff (Wonder how that word evolved

?) members, and they might not look with pleasure 'pon such a redesign - unless, maybe, you included a hunk of the day, as well

.

Quote from: mouser on March 07, 2011, 03:40 PM

Now regarding banning users.. We have to ban several users per day for trying to spam the forum -- usually by sticking advertising links in their profiles that no one ever sees -- so there is plenty of banning that happens, but never for anything other than advertisement spamming.

Total agreement

. Even extreme language or attitude(s) are seldom a valid cause for such an action, although I've been in forae that were pretty casual about using the process

. As an enforcement, it is well nigh useless - too easy to rejoin with a different alias/email address. And if a reputation for banning is acquired, some folk will avoid joining just for that reason.

Oh, yeah ... if we divest ourselves of all the critics, how will we know what to consider when re-evaluating design & function

.