(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

@nooby

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [WORDNET]:

yes-man
n : a person of unquestioning obedience [syn: {flunky}, {flunkey},
{stooge}]

No I am not a Yes man at all. I've told many people here what I don't approve of about their behaviors. Ask Beem he knows. Others knows too that I can be very opposing. I told many Devs that I preferred Firefox to SeaMonkey.

I told those that insist to force Double click on us to stop doing such nonsense.

No I am not a yes man at all.

I am only trying to be realistic on what is possible and what is not practical to ask for.

alienjeff wrote:

Flash wrote:A well-thought-out policy with posted rules would just give vandals a fixed target, and be the source of constant carping by jailhouse lawyers.

Talk about easy targets. Sheesh. That post, though few in words, speaks volumes about its author and possibly the forum hierarchy. I'm sure of the former, but hope it's not the case with the latter.

One can only think of 1984 when War is Peace and Right is Wrong, coupled with the behavior of turkeys in the rain.

But, it's Puppy Related, and therefore may not have any connection to the rest of the universe.

I think it's a shame this is being discussed in this thread....I had suggested to John M recently, and he agreed to discussion about moderation, whilst taking the step of appointing new mods - ultimate site owner privilege!

Suggestion:

Openness, and consistency is what is needed for moderation to be both effective and respected....and, remember, it's a 2 way street

Some people's ideas of acceptable aren't others, but when mods join in threads, they should, if they expect to maintain respect and consistency, let everyone know when they are posting 'with moderator hat on' or as themselves/individual puppy users - and give a reason for action, so a banned member may appeal against a reason, as is legal custom

When behaviour/language is not considered acceptable, a warning should be issued, and comment invited as to the action taken, both by the warned, and the rest of the users [feedback built in]

posts should be put into an invisible thread, rather than immediately deleted, so if the gist of the thread is affected, the post can be edited, and returned......if such is possible with this phpBB version?

In my humble opinion.....

And I would like to see a 'ban this poster' button, which accrues points from all forum users, towards a target ban total. the points would be visible/available to also show people who try to ban too often for 'common sense/good judgement'

I still think this moderation/fairness issue warrants its own thread, and we CAN be mature enough to come up with an agreed framework...if only to help reduce 'bad taste in the mouth' from returning posters, and to help stop wind-up trigger/response type negative energy threads

views, please.....towards an improvement in perceived/actual fairness, which I believe to be a common goal

so, who's for a fresh thread?

Aitch

Aitch wrote:so, who's for a fresh thread?

Yes, please.

Let's everyone step back to 10000 feet from Internet. Now, let start to zero in. Since most of all people on the planet cannot see everything at the same time all the time our eyes lead us to very specific areas...targets

Now, realistically, for most of us, that area is Puppy. A site started and primarily focused on a creation to support the development by BarryK. OK...fast forwarding, the powers to be saw fit to provide some well focused area for contributors to add and discussion to center on things called "Threads" designed mainly in support of Puppy Linux. The URL says ".../puppy".

I personally joined for understanding and participating in those things 'Puppy'! I don’t join a football team to do swimming. So, from one observation; Why would anyone want to inject swimming into a FOOTBALL TEAM's GAME???

We have a real problem in trying to be all things to all people, including those who, because they see an “Off-Topic

gcmartin,

Off-topic is off-topic ...

Truly off topic is truly off-topic.

The reason why the truly off-topic area was set up was because people wanted a place to discuss things that had nothing to do with Puppy/Linux/Technology with the friends or enemies they had made in the other areas. The main objective was for people to have an area where they'd be free to talk about whatever they wanted.

The only thing I have ever wanted was common sense, and I hoped for civil discourse.
Common sense being a relative term, which I think has a minimum common denominator.

I know many people that ignore the off topic area, and it is a bit of a pain sometimes, so if you think it shouldn't exist I would recommend you ignore it too.

I appreciate feedback around how I can make this site and it's community work better, as it is important to me and I want it to be a better place.

However, rules around what you can and can't talk about I do object to.

Freedom is another relative term which is important to me.
Unfortunately freedom isn't free it seems

Cheers
JohnM

" Common sense being a relative term, which I think has a minimum common denominator. "

" Freedom is another relative term which is important to me. "

Old fashioned views but an in-fashion harbour, is the Murga Forum.

"""

" The main objective was for people to have an area where they'd be
free to talk about whatever they wanted. "

Such a basic ingredient in the mix that it is ignored here by some,
wanting a more exotic democracy?? to assert their own authority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk

""""""

I nominate myself to be hung, drawn and quartered first..

>> 'ban this poster'

Feelin' the luuvvvv already....Chris.

Hello,

I nominate myself to be hung, drawn and quartered first..

.

Seriously, sometimes that poster goes out of his/her way to be helpful, but at other times dispenses gratuitous insults.

Personally, I am in favour of a minimum application of rules and officialdom. There have to be some rules, e.g. re advertising and incitement to crimes (though I think British politicians should be allowed to commit suicide and to murder each other).

I believe that the simplest of sketched "rules" should be understood by all forum officials as part of an official policy.

I also think that whatever is disgraceful reading matter for young children is bad for this forum.

cthisbear wrote: " The main objective was for people to have an area where they'd be
free to talk about whatever they wanted. "

Such a basic ingredient in the mix that it is ignored here by some,
wanting a more exotic democracy?? to assert their own authority.

There are two points here you are missing, or choosing to ignore:

1. If free speech is the credo of this forum, why are some things censured and/or deleted? And yet some things far worse remain? Bit of a conundrum, ehh?

2. There HAS to be a lowest common denominator in what is allowed. Really, hate talk against race, nationality, and as tlchost pointed out, even other distros, should not be tolerated. Also questionable would be how low on the sexual inuendo or blatant comments we want to go. As pointed out again, there are younger members here. And all of that, even if one is not concerned about one's own reputation, does reflect badly on Puppy.

Also, there needs to be a lowest common denominator in how much "griefing" we want to tolerate. Puppyite and jonyo come to mind for this example. I also see some atrocious behavior in the Studio 4 thread. A lot of baiting to provoke bad behavior, insults galore, and a couple of interesting issues put to test: 1. the underlying issue concerning a dev's obligation to users (which seems to have come up before elseswhere several times, remember? With devs saying they owe users nothing yet this dev got banned for that) and 2. the more superficial issue of "does a forum member have the right to edit out his own posts?"

The most basic set of "rules" would cover these recurring issues. We seem to not have a lot of problems, just the same few problems repeatedly.

Thanks @JohnMurga. In my haste to post, I really meant "Truly Off-Topic". I believe you read between the lines, for me. I won't use my age for my mistyping "Off-Topic" while referring to Truly Off-Topic. It was the human in me.

For the most part, I find the community well behaved. There are some missteps, but, many/most users seem to find ways to get along and contribute.

I understand your reference to freedom and your reference to that area. I, personally find nothing wrong with your view or management. Bing has theirs, Yahoo has theirs, Google has theirs, and just about every forum site has theirs. Further many of these sites will "remove users/remarks" when the moderators feel its necessary without even a hint of what went wrong. Even though it hasn't happened to me, personally, I have seen many times over where there have been objections to removals. Maybe, now, that THIS thread has gotten my attention, I will be more mindful in watching for reasons this occurs on other sites. Maybe i will learn something more, there, that will be useful in my future understanding of site enforcements strategies and about site policy management.

But, to me, I find that the Internet stance has been an "open", "free" minefield. And that anyone, in the world, can open a site on the net for whatever reason-topic-mission they may choose. That to me is FREEDOM. And, given the right set of circumstances or topic, people finding it appropriate, will gravitate to it. Thus, along these lines, I view Freedom as the Internet as a whole.

But the Puppy site, intends to be focused on Puppy...not about freedom which is what the internet stands for. Its about Puppy and the freedom to address and dispatch in that context....Puppy and the Puppy community. The sub-topics are designed around just that....I think.

Puppy Linux....to me is and the sites that support it, to me, is about Linux. Puppy being the distro. And I gravitated to it for "All Things Puppy"; directly or indirectly. That's just me. And, I see this community working to that end for the most part. And, i hope we can be vigilant to insure that we participate and share in all things Puppy without some of the enormous HATE I've seen in Truly Off-Target (mistype again) that sometimes shows up in that area. This is an international (the world) community of participants seemingly here to work together, contribute freely, discuss architectural implementations, and advance an understanding of what a truly useful product can be. This site is a shining example of mankind working for mankind as we explore, discuss, and implement. Everyone, this is what our world should be!

Thanks again, @JohnMurga for everything that you inspired when you created this site for this community.

Since this is not really now continuing the OPs post, I have opened a new thread...please read, absorb, think, and comment

Please continue the most recent comment ideas there

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 557#533557

Aitch

New Puppy Users Group started by puppyite

AFAIK only one seems interested? Okay he has an appointed Moderator.

Maybe it get more interesting when he launch the site with the forum.

Now he is active in a thread on LinuxQuestions and many most likely care about LQ enough to keep a low profile?

But only one interested seems too few to get something going. But who knows.

JohnMurga wrote:I appreciate feedback around how I can make this site and it's community work better, as it is important to me and I want it to be a better place.

I'd limit users to a max of ten posts per day. Chatting should be done on IRC and the problems on the forum tend to come from people who just hang out here all day.

Hello,
Ten posts per day....
OK, a couple in the morning, a couple at lunch, a couple after dinner...leaves me four before bed...
I ccccan dddoo ttthhhisss.. but I may have to drink more....

Dougal, that wouldn't stop someone who's bent on vandalizing the forum. The guy who attacked us a week ago registered anew through an anonymizing (Tor) server almost as fast as I could delete his new memberships. That would be a way to get around a limit on posts per day.

" That would be a way to get around a limit on posts per day."

Exactly.

Chris.

Dougal wrote:

JohnMurga wrote:I appreciate feedback around how I can make this site and it's community work better, as it is important to me and I want it to be a better place.

... the problems on the forum tend to come from people who just hang out here all day.

could you expand on this one

"the problems on the forum tend to come from people who just hang out here all day."

Links would be good to have to understand what you refer to.

JohnMurga wrote:However, rules around what you can and can't talk about I do object to.

Freedom is another relative term which is important to me.
Unfortunately freedom isn't free it seems

Well, I would certainly like to thank you for your gift of this forum to us -- the time and monetary burden it creates!

Flash wrote:Dougal, that wouldn't stop someone who's bent on vandalizing the forum. The guy who attacked us a week ago registered anew through an anonymizing (Tor) server almost as fast as I could delete his new memberships. That would be a way to get around a limit on posts per day.

Nothing will stop malicious people. My point is people who just overdo it with making a lot of pretty content-less posts, which not only tends to cause conflicts, but also makes it harder to keep up with the forum (the 150 post limit of "view posts since last visit" gets filled in 48 hours) and can sometimes confuse users asking for help.