In-House Wars: For at least one, the goal was to drive people away.

Admin Moderator | 8-2-02 | Admin Moderator

[justshe]

***Occasionally the only way to clean out the garbage is to get right down ind the middle of it. If your sensibilities don't allow it, please don't feel obligated.***

This is a response to the moderator's statements that: "The answer is for everyone to just stop doing it. AND: People can help us out in finding them by refusing to take part in the flame wars..."

Do we give the disruptors the satisfaction of helping them achieve their goals by "...get right down in the middle of it."? And thus guarantee they will continue their tactics? Perhaps even escalating their efforts?

Just a question.

[Publius6961]

"...get right down in the middle of it."? And thus guarantee they will continue their tactics? Perhaps even escalating their efforts?

Never suggested that one stay there.
Just long enought to make it clear that we know what we're dealing with.
Then ignore them.

[Joe Hadenuf]

But you surely can't be suggesting, as it applies here, that the owner(s) of this site can't decide the RULES of this association, can you?

Try reading 163. A little closer this time.....

[Joe Hadenuf]

Correction, try reading 165 again.......

[justshe]

Joe,

Please read #173 a little closer. :-)

It is NOT addressed to YOUR posts of #163 and #165

It addressed in response to Post #164 posted by lewislynn.

[Bob J]

There will always be disruptors, plants and those with a personal agenda her on FR, always have been. Attempting to track them all down, guess their intentions and removing them is a tedious long term strategy. I would suggest dealing stricly with the actions and not not the intent. Tighten up on the no personal abuse rule. If someone violates it, remove the post. If it occurs a second time on the same thread, put them in the cooler for a day. If they get 3 cooler days, each new infraction is a week in the cooler.

I think at times the mods have been too quick to ban on the first or second offense. Sometimes people get heated and post things they wish they hadn't and we may have lost some people who could have become active chapter members or leaders. At worst, they get mad and become antifreepers. Of course, with FR's easy registration process, reregistering under a new name is a problem.

Antie Mame had a good suggestion earlier that is similar to something I proposed to Jim at Fresno. Expand the mods to 25-30, rotate duties and institute internal controls and review by the group itself. I would suggest an internal "review board", made up of 3 or so rotating members, for bannings that allow a bannee a chance at appeal and have his situation looked at by others. Jim could still retain ultimate control and this may lessen some of the pressure and time committments of the existing mods. It will also allow for internal oversite of the members themselves.

I would even go farther and allow members of this mod board to be nominated and voted on by the Forum members themselves, once per year. Who wins could be kept confidential and assigned a mod #, much as you do know, to maintain anonymity...which I think is critical to the success of the program.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Oh, I know who it was posted to. And I am confident that he agrees with my post 165. Just a wild guess.

Why did you bother to ask me a question on 163, and then when I respond at 165, you don't bother to answer? What's up with that?

[justshe]

I understood your responses and had no questions. No offense intended. YOU didn't leave open that you might have a problem with the owner's of this site having their own rules. I don't know if lewis did, based on his/her response. So I asked a question, to CLARIFY for my own understanding.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

There will always be disruptors, plants and those with a personal agenda her on FR, always have been. Attempting to track them all down, guess their intentions and removing them is a tedious long term strategy. I would suggest dealing stricly with the actions and not not the intent. Tighten up on the no personal abuse rule.

I think this is excellent advice.

[Joe Hadenuf]

It is NOT addressed to YOUR posts of #163 and #165

Oh, and that's another reason why I answered 164, as their was not response to mine.

And no, no offense taken. I have a very thick hide......

[Admin Moderator]

I sent you a Freepmail regarding the multiple account person.

Regarding the posting of personal information, that shouldn't have been done and a suspension was given. That said, there is no question that the poster in question had said he was going to post some proof, and the injured party had pretty much said go ahead. This may have been misconstrued as permission to post what he did. In any case, it was against the forum guidelines, the post removed, and a suspension given.

And the removal of all of a person's accounts when many have been found has always resulted in the removal of the accounts. That isn't new, and it has been meted out in many cases. We have some people who have more than one account, due to having a spouse. We have had people sign up obvious joke names which have been used once or twice. Those don't generally get the death penalty. But when we see 8 accounts, most with 200-300 posts, that is not a person playing a joke. That is a person trying to make himself look like more than one person, and regardless of ideology it is dishonest and isn't going to be tolerated.

Thanks, AM

[Dominic Harr]

I've asked this before. I'll ask it again. (And this is not aimed at you, ... but at the forum). Please stop it with the personal attacks. One can have a rip-roaring take-it-to-the-mat political debate with someone without getting personal, without resorting to childish taunts, and still not have it be bland.

Rip-roaring, take-it-to-the-mat debate is okay.

Personal insults and email full of words you can't say on television is *not*.

Unless your goal is indeed to drive people away and silence debate.

[discostu]

Sure thing Dom. You stop calling me an unprofessional unskilled idiot MS apologist and I'll stop calling you a madman.

[Amelia]

One of this guy's incarnations posted a piece or two from anarchist website strike-the-root, which to me hints to what his ideology is. It would also explain why he had a knack for going after the DC chapter folks....Obviously, the goal is to drive people away.

If this is the thread you're referring to...you can see in post #3 that he/she found the article at the Declaration Foundation website.

He got the article from *GASP* Dr. Alan Keyes' Declaration Foundation site? OH MY!

I didn't know they were anarchists, but I knew Dr. Keyes and his followers were trying to divide Conservatives when I first saw Dr. Keyes' article I am not a Bush Republican!

Yes, this poster was surely a dangerous character. Definitely needed to be banned! (I don't understand why he would disagree with the D.C. Chapter, though.)

[Dominic Harr]

I'm allowed to question your skills and experiences, when you're commenting on highly technical threads without any development experience.

If you're a QA person who's disagreeing with a dozen developers on a fine point of OS design, as in that thread, the question of experience is highly relevant.

That's not personal, it's part of the 'rip-roaring' debate.

But calling me personal names, and sending filth-laden emails insulting and threatening *is* personal.

You must see the difference?

[discostu]

Ah... so it's OK for you to tell people they're wasting their boss' time and money, but it's not OK for me to say my only experience with your prefered development method (which never involved you, we've never worked together, thank God) was bad (which is no comment on you, only on the managers I worked with that like prototyping). I begin to see now. Anything Dominic Harr says is OK because he's fighting a battle against the evil MS monopoly. Anything anybody says that contradicts Dominic is bad because they're dupes and apologists. Thanks for explaining that.

Oh, and I never threatened you. I did call you every name in the book, and I'll do it again if you insult my profession with an across the board broadside. But there were no threats.

[Dominic Harr]

Oh, and I never threatened you.

Should I post the email you sent me?

Or perhaps forward it to the admin moderator?

You'd get banned if they saw that. Just be aware that I'm not the only one who thinks that kind of personal flaming is off-limits.

[discostu]

Well then you shouldn't be saying someone's profession lack "technical skills". You run around here throwing broadsides at everybody and their coworkers. But you can't take one slightest bit of what you dish out. Look at the other thread. You said "looks like we're not going to agree", I said "sure enough, but hey we're being civil". Next thing I know you're foaming at the freaking mouth with your usual accusation of apologism and "parsing". You just can't walk away from one. You must win at all costs. That discussion was over, but you realized you hadn't won (because you're wrong and you can't possibly win it), so you're back. And instead of arguing the facts you're arguing the person. That's always your next step. Can't beat the facts, yell "APOLOGIST", go after the person's experience, go after their profession what the heck. You can't just agree to disagree and walk away. Never gonna happen.

[Dominic Harr]

My pointing out you lack development experience as a QA guy is not a personal insult.

Calling me names you wouldn't let your 8 year old use *is* a personal insult.

Now I don't want you banned.

Please try and take my advice and learn the difference before you send a note like that to someone who won't be as patient.

[LurkerNoMore!]

bump