TOS violation vs RESPECT violation Options

[guruboolez]

This post is an infringement of TOS#7.
I disagree with a moderating decision made by an anonymous moderator, which closed my thread dedicated to a big listening test which took me a long time to perform.
According to Peter (which hasn't closed the thread), the topic is closed because it's outdated. I can't believe this. There are 4 year old threads dedicated to listening tests which are still opened. Only one was closed: mine.
I disagree with that. There's an elementary and universal rule of politeness which isn't followed here: respect. Respect for members, respect for their works. Closing a topic without giving any reason is disrespectful. And cowardly. I consider the universal rule of respect and dignity as more important as TOS#7. That's why I posting this second message AGAIN.

The purpose of this thread is not to publically discuss a moderating action, but to inform people that moderating action are sometimes happening for arbitrary reason, and that some listening tests results are apparently deranging.

This thread will probably be deleted. My account too.

[bug80]

This must be some sort of mistake. I don't see why this thread can possibly be outdated.

[john33]

As I am sure everyone will agree, guruboolez is one of the most respected, dedicated and valuable members of HA and, as such, I would urge the Admins/Mods to resolve this as soon as possible. We really would not wish to lose him!!

[David Nordin]

apart from the thread closing, which most likely is adressed to shortly. Posting against ToS *should* be beyound Guru by now, being a member for so long, he should know better,.

[bug80]

apart from the thread closing, which most likely is adressed to shortly. Posting against ToS *should* be beyound Guru by now, being a member for so long, he should know better,.

Come on the TOS is not holy.

[Synthetic Soul]

apart from the thread closing, which most likely is adressed to shortly. Posting against ToS *should* be beyound Guru by now, being a member for so long, he should know better,.

He has posted to Site Related Discussion. I believe that, because he is a long-serving member, he has the right to question authority.

Being embittered and frustrated by my own personal encounter with moderation I can sympathise. Edit: I should point out that my situation is completely different to guruboolez's, and therefore no real comparisons can be made, except perhaps for the frustration it can cause.

Anyway, I just wanted to state my disappointment that an honoured member like guruboolez should be made to feel this way.

It is not only moderators that should be respected. All members deserve the same respect that you would give them in person.

I don't know whether the thread should be closed or not (four months seems very short), but certainly some consistency is required. Why close one thread and not all others the same age?

People are still posting to the "Lossy codec of choice" thread, which is eleven months old.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Jan 9 2006, 11:37

[pest]

This thread will probably be deleted. My account too.

i hope that you don't impend with your deletion.
we're all human. i hope that this is just a misunderstanding.

best regards

[bluewer than blu...]

I'm sure that this is a result of misunderstanding really. Nobody is above the rules of a forum/site etc, but we also should take under consideration the unique characteristics of every case and act accordingly.

I don't think that the vast majority, if not everybody, doesn't feel gratitude for all that you have offered to this community and the mp3 scene in general with your tests guru.

[sh1leshk4]

I guess this means you can still find a few bad apples in a quality controlled environment...


~aReallySadStateOfAffairsIfThisIsNotToBeSortedOutRightAway...

This post has been edited by sh1leshk4: Jan 9 2006, 11:37

[David Nordin]

apart from the thread closing, which most likely is adressed to shortly. Posting against ToS *should* be beyound Guru by now, being a member for so long, he should know better,.

Come on the TOS is not holy.

The ToS is what it is, and it applies to anyone.
It wouldn't be fair to let certain people pass through when so many have not been in the past would it?
Not even moderators can/will breake ToS.

*edit spelling: "brake" -> "break",
note to self.... "upgrade spelling chip"

This post has been edited by David Nordin: Jan 9 2006, 11:43

[guruboolez]

Not even moderators can/will brake ToS.

And what about Gambit's insults? What about Gambit's claims based on nothing, not even one single ABX test?

[David Nordin]

Not even moderators can/will brake ToS.

And what about Gambit's insults? What about Gambit's claims based on nothing, not even one single ABX test?

In tha threa Gambit states the following:

I will try to finish my test and post the complete results soon.

surely, about a month has passed, but methodology claimed is ABX and an ongoing one which was not finished.
So there's not much to say about that other than he should either more clearly state that a conclusion is unavailable since test isn't finished or he should speed up and try to publish ABX results...

[Synthetic Soul]

I guess this means you can still find a few bad apples in a quality controlled environment...

I'm not sure that any malpractice is being suggested. I hope we are purely discussing the suggestion that, in some circumstances, moderators might feel the need to explain themselves before taking action, and discuss the situation with the individual by PM. Obviously not all situations warrant this - perhaps only a few.

When you are moderated the system does not tell you who moderated your post. I don't believe that moderators should have to justify themselves to everyone, or that they should be named, but in circumstances such as this I think a PM to guruboolez would have been, or would be, a sensible thing to do.

I understand David Nordin's points, but I would like to think that some reasonable discussion can be conducted on such delicate issues. If not we are in a dictatorship.

There's a pretty simple line between this situation and someone trolling or just being highly offensive to another member.

[sh1leshk4]

@Synthetic Soul
No, it's not 'bad moderators' that I was talking about.
It's 'bad moderations'.

I also understand David's point of view.
But I can also understand guru's feelings about the still unresolved problem of the closing of his thread up until now.

If the closing of guru's thread isn't under the violation of any rule and only because "...it's old.", does this mean guru should just sit down and can't do anything since he's bound to TOS #7 and should respect the mods?


~justMy$0.02...

This post has been edited by sh1leshk4: Jan 9 2006, 12:24

[Synthetic Soul]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

The thread has been reopend by the way...

[sehested]

The thread has been reopened.

I see no reason to do the laundry in public.

Please continue further dissussion using PM.

[smz]

I just noticed that Garf reopened the offend(ing? ed?) thread. Last messages I see in it, before Garf's one, are a "Thank-you" message sent on Jan, 6 and before that a message sent on Nov, 2.

I can't imagine what TOS violation Guru is accused of. I bet it cannot be TOS#8, thus.

Beside that, just want to tell that I subscribe every Synthetic Souls's word.

I understand that a forum is not a democracy and that moderators are not elected by "we the people", but moderators should be wise enough so that it will not be perceived as a dictatorship or an oligocracy.

Sergio

[ssamadhi97]

I can't imagine what TOS violation Guru is accused of. I bet it cannot be TOS#8, thus.

He is accusing himself of violating ToS#7 in this thread here, because in the same post he is publicly questioning the actions of a moderator (namely closing his listening test thread).

His rambling about ToS#7, while dramatic, is not directly related to the closing of the other thread.

[smz]

I can't imagine what TOS violation Guru is accused of. I bet it cannot be TOS#8, thus.

He is accusing himself of violating ToS#7 in this thread here, because in the same post he is publicly questioning the actions of a moderator (namely closing his listening test thread).

His rambling about ToS#7, while dramatic, is not directly related to the closing of the other thread.

So... the facts are that the thread was closed motu proprio by a moderator because of... "nothing special"? That's REALLY odd!

[Sebastian Mares]

This is slightly off-topic, but while we're at it, I would like admins to disable the right of moderators to NOT include the "Edited by" line at the bottom of a modified post. If a moderator modifies a post, I would like to see it.

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Jan 9 2006, 13:10

[Garf]

The thread was closed because:

a) there had been no new posts for 2 months
b) the last few posts 2 months ago didn't contain new information or discussion
c) the post that resurrected the thread didn't contain anything new either
d) the original thread is 6 months old

It's quite common to close threads in this situation. If it's not applied to all threads, then that is because moderators don't read all of them. Use the "Report this post to a moderator" button, it's there for a reason. And yes, this means that the more interesting a thread is, the more likely there is going to be moderator action.

I think TOS 7 is quite clear that if it's stated that a thread is closed because it was inappropriate, no new one should be started. As you said yourself several times now, at no time was this done, so if there was something new to say about it, it could have been done in a new thread. Doing it this way prevents one from reading through 4 pages of old posts and having to figure out what is old and what is new.

Finally, TOS 7 is also clear that if you have an issue with a moderator decision, you take it up via PM and not on the forum. If the moderator is unreasonable, take it up with the head admin (CiTay) via PM. (And have some patience - moderating HA is nobody's day job)

I don't see the need for this drama - the thread could have been trivially reopened, as was just done. It seems I didn't anticipate your desire to keep receiving thank you notes for that test: Sorry dude - your tests are appreciated here, and also by me!

The purpose of this thread is not to publically discuss a moderating action, but to inform people that moderating action are sometimes happening for arbitrary reason, and that some listening tests results are apparently deranging.

This thread will probably be deleted. My account too.

Oh please. We seldomly give reasons for closing a thread or removing posts unless they are asked for. The thread was closed because of (a), (b), © and (d), and not because you are special.

I wonder what kind of dignity and respect you are thinking of when you are trying to put yourself into a martyr role like this.

If I were to apply the same rule to anyone, you would be suspended from posting now, because that's what would happen with a new member that violates TOS 7. But that's what you are trying to accomplish, right? So tell me, what should I do?

[Garf]

This is slightly off-topic, but while we're at it, I would like Admins to disable the right of moderators to NOT include the "Edited by" line at the bottom of a modified post. If a moderator modifies a post, I would like to see it.

Yes, I dislike this too. But it's not a right: it's the default behaviour when you are a moderator, so you have to remember to disable it each time.

Will look at patching this when upgrading to IPB 2.1.x.

[bluewer than blu...]

Maybe it will be better if you close this thread, since it's obvious that it can easily turn into a battlefield and because it has already made its point. Case closed...life's goes on.

[Sebastian Mares]

This is slightly off-topic, but while we're at it, I would like Admins to disable the right of moderators to NOT include the "Edited by" line at the bottom of a modified post. If a moderator modifies a post, I would like to see it.

Yes, I dislike this too. But it's not a right: it's the default behaviour when you are a moderator, so you have to remember to disable it each time.

Will look at patching this when upgrading to IPB 2.1.x.

Well, my IPB 2.1 and also 2.0 installation has the option to remove that for user groups.

Admin CP --> Users and Groups --> Manage User Groups --> Edit Group <Group Name> --> Allow user to remove 'Edited by' legend?

It only applies if moderators edit a post by pressing "Edit" - it doesn't work on closing or pinning posts for example.

Edit: BTW, IPB respects that option even if you are a global moderator or administrator - if the respective option is set to "No" for the respective group, removing the "Edited by" line is not possible.

This post has been edited by Sebastian Mares: Jan 9 2006, 13:18

[Garf]

Thanks for the hint.