|
|
1234567
... 31
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 12:28 PM, Justin Wood (Callek)'s opinion was expressed:
> We need to inform the user why he won't see his post, and provide a
> reference of what the post was. (and include escalation methods if there
> was an error)
"We" would be the moderators. If you moderator guys do this, then be
aware that you may be creating a monster that you're going to have to
feed (e.g. "escalation methods").
I'm not saying you shouldn't do something, just that if you create
"escalation methods" then you're going to have to stand by them and that
will be one more administrative chore you will have AND A LOT OF USERS
HERE ARE GOING TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE FIRE!
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>
>> We need to inform the user why he won't see his post, and provide a
>> reference of what the post was. (and include escalation methods if
>> there was an error)
>
> so, what you're suggesting is that all postings go through a moderator
> before its posted.
Not at all, not every user checks newsgroups religiously they may post
replies and check a week later to see their answer. and in such a case
they won't see their post.
> imo:
We know your opinion as it relates to moderation and Chris I. Yes -- no
need to rehash that.
--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 12:28 PM, Justin Wood (Callek)'s opinion was expressed:
>
>> We need to inform the user why he won't see his post, and provide a
>> reference of what the post was. (and include escalation methods if
>> there was an error)
>
> "We" would be the moderators. If you moderator guys do this, then be
> aware that you may be creating a monster that you're going to have to
> feed (e.g. "escalation methods").
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't do something, just that if you create
> "escalation methods" then you're going to have to stand by them and that
> will be one more administrative chore you will have AND A LOT OF USERS
> HERE ARE GOING TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE FIRE!
>
For the record, by "We" I meant "the community", and there are already
escalation methods. It just so happens that when the cases for
moderation have happend those escalation methods stuck by (majority
wise) with the moderators...
Just because there *is* a method of escalation doesn't mean that "you
get whatever you want".
--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 10:26 AM, Tarkus's opinion was expressed:
>
>> I find this poll offensive, and think it should be removed.
>
> Nice backhanded way to show that personal attacks as defined by the
> perception of the attacked is VERY ARBITRARY and can actually be used as
> a tool for "getting back" at someone you don't like. If ever there were
> a flimsy standard, this is one. It can be abused itself.
>
> And then the moderators would find themselves in the middle of a dispute
> over whether a "perceived" personal attack complaint itself was a
> personal attack. Talk about things spiraling out of control.
>
> I think Jay's suggestion earlier about using the Off Topic policy to
> avoid the whole situation here and still eliminate personal attacks
> indirectly is the way to go.
>
> I would think the moderators would embrace this as a method to avoid
> interminable disputes and still achieve the goal of eliminating personal
> attacks.
[IANAL] Can be solved with a:
"If you feel like there was a personal attack against you, report it and
the moderators will look into it"
and "What is a personal attack is chosen by the moderating team, and all
decisions are chosen case-by-case and is final" etc.
--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
p.s. yes I know that is half-contrary to my previous escalation method
suggestion, but i'm just presenting other options.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offense, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
If the personal attack , strictly to attack a person without some
extenuating circumstance *yes*
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
yes but there should be a one free bite rule. that is the first time its
ignored, the second time should be a warning
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
Depends upon the type of attack.
example:
1) say I am an administrator and I do something other feel that
I've done strictly out of spite. And some one says Phil acted
like dunce, or a dumbass, He canceled this because he personally didn't
like post from this person. Or he assumed that the post didn't jive with
his sensibilities of what the group is about, and everyone else in the
group agrees the person post was in keeping with what the group is
about. The answer would be *No*. They are only using colorful
description of my actions
On the other hand if some one called me a prickhead son of bitch. (Yes)
That is going to the person character. Not to what he done wrong.
Furthermore if a lot of people give hostile comments about a person be
it an administrator, or just a Post. Then that person should reconsider
their actions and apologize for the transgressions and rectify the
situation.
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Justin Wood (Callek)-2
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 2:05 PM, Justin Wood (Callek)'s opinion was expressed:
> there are already escalation methods.
And if this personal attack stuff is promulgated, those escalation
methods may be used more frequently.
The fact that they already exist doesn't say anything about how
frequently they may be used.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Michael Gordon wrote:
> Chris Ilias replied On 11/28/2008 3:30 PM
>
>> _Background_
>> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
>> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
>> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
>> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
> I disagree on the generalizations within the above paragraph. No.
>>
>> _Personal Attacks_
>> The first rule of etiquette at
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offense, and yet we don't
>> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>>
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
> Yes, if you can get them before the rest of the world reads them.
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
> No. Remove the post then send a warning.
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
> Yes.
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
> The policies in your first paragraph make the support groups very cold
> and sterile and to a user looking for help it is not inviting. On the
> other hand off topic discussions can get way off topic and need to be
> avoided. What ever happened to the friendly camaraderie among
> programmers and support staff seems to have been killed off.
When has that ever changed.
Programmers have always had the belief the are better than others be it
support staff, or even users. Even though they put their pants on the
same way everyone else does-one leg at a time.
I've quit posting very much in other groups such a s SeaMonkey, FireFox,
and Thunderbird. Because I'm being constantly put down for giving
information That Mac users would like to hear, or be interested in. I
always get some smart comment about why are you posting that since we
use a PC. The do make Mozilla products, for other OS other than windows.
Mac, Unix, Linux to name just three.
For a while here in Mozilla it was reasonably friend and you could crack
a joke or two on occasion. I can see where have a thread go OT and run
for 50 replies is getting way off base. so some sort of reason should be
used. But too much restraint cause many people that would ask questions
to scared away from asking question and using the product.
One beacon of sanity on this server is this very group where for the
most part you can let your hair down a little.
> Michael
>>
>> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
>> are not removed.
>>
>> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
>> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
>> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Gerald Ross wrote:
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> _Background_
>> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
>> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
>> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
>> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>>
>>
>> _Personal Attacks_
>> The first rule of etiquette at
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
>> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>>
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> Yes
>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>
> NO
>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>
> Yes
>
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
> The same should apply to political remarks.
If that be the case there should be a strict policy of absolutely no
politics US or other, or any type of religion in any group. Even this
should be tolerated.
Persons shouldn't be banned. just the post yanked and a note no religion
of any kind atheism or agnosticism, or Politics is tolerated on *any*
Mozilla Groups, be it support, developer or otherwise.
>> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
>> are not removed.
>>
>> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
>> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
>> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
»Q« wrote:
> In <news: [hidden email]>,
> Irwin Greenwald < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2008 6:05 PM, »Q« wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800
>>> Irwin Greenwald < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response
>>>> to a personal attack.
>>> I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified"
>>> personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same.
>>> (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any
>>> valid justifications for personal attacks.)
>>>
>>>> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack
>>>> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending
>>>> on this process.
>>> Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment
>>> call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption
>>> that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal
>>> attack before any action would be taken, though we haven't
>>> discussed that explicitly.
>> Can I interpret that to mean that there won't be a requirement that
>> someone file a report complaining about the post?
>
> I didn't mean to imply that with what I wrote above, but I do not think
> there would be a requirement that someone complain. There are a few
> reasons not to require complaints, but I think Chris already mentioned
> the most compelling one, that many people in the groups don't know how
> to reach us to complain. (And I don't think people in the groups
> should have to worry about the cancellation policy or who implements it
> in order to get the benefits of it.)
>
> That said, of course if someone brought to our attention something they
> thought we had overlooked, we'd take a look at it then.
>
Uh, how about, post with the subject line compliant about a personal
attack within the newsgroup. and write the the post as To
administrator(s) please look into the perceived personal attack. action
at your discretion
click reply to post that has the attack and change subject line to
To administrator about attack was .... (Subject).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 2:12 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>
>> Generally, I would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause
>> discomfort, rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor. Intent
>> is often the deciding factor between 'accident', and 'crime'.
>
> Careful, "intent" is a slippery slope. The classic excuse would be "I
> didn't mean it that way". And if it was taken as a "personal attack",
> how is a user supposed to know the sensitivities of a particular person?
>
> And, if you want to make it hinge on "common sense", then as I said
> before, the funny thing about common sense is that it's not that common.
>
That why there can't be one all powerful administrator. In order for
such policies to be fairle adjudicated, ther can be no less than 3 and
the 3 must vote.
One person to himself can not be trusted to do the righ thing everytime.
His her personality will always raise its ugly head.
So unless they can find three adminstrators, for each and every Mozilla
Group. Then the idea should be scrapped.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 29.11.2008 10:12, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Ron Hunter to
>> generate the following:? :
>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:58:06 -0800
>>>> Irwin Greenwald < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (1) I'm not sure what to do about a personal attack in response to a
>>>>> personal attack.
>>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't be willing to try to distinguish between "justified"
>>>> personal attacks and unjustified ones. I'd treat them all the same.
>>>> (I put "justified" in quotes because I don't think there are any
>>>> valid justifications for personal attacks.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (2) You have not described the process by which a personal attack
>>>>> will be recognized as such; My vote/opinion might change depending
>>>>> on this process.
>>>>>
>>>> Whether or not something is a personal attack would be a judgment
>>>> call on our (me, Nir, Chris) part. I'm working under the assumption
>>>> that at least two of us would have to agree that it's a personal attack
>>>> before any action would be taken, though we haven't discussed that
>>>> explicitly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A personal attack should be quite obvious. Something like: "You're a
>>> stupid idiot" is a personal attack. "That is a stupid idea." is not.
>>> Casting aspersions on one's race, ethnic heritage, parentage, or even
>>> the state of one's dress, certainly qualifies. Things like 'What can
>>> you expect from a Kiwi?' are much harder to classify. Generally, I
>>> would required that the comment be intended to annoy, or cause
>>> discomfort,
>>> rather than merely 'tweak' the other party in humor.
>> problem with that one, Ron.... we all know just how much humor "one of"
>> the designated moderators can cope with!
>> NONE !
>>
>> <<snipped>>
>>
>> reg
> Grin.
> Now who would that be?
>
>
Let's no incite any personal attacks now.
That why for the policy to work each and every group would have to be
administered by not less than 3 administrators.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 7:13 AM, Jay Garcia's opinion was expressed:
>
>> My suggestion:
>>
>> In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
>> idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
>> escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
>> original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
>> mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
>> over-police the groups.
>
> Echo on that suggestion.
>
ditto
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 2:16 PM, G. R. Woodring's opinion was expressed:
> Yes, if a reasonable definition of "personal attack" is established.
And that's going to be difficult if not impossible. I see another one
of these polls on that topic, unless the mods just want to do it among
themselves without community input.
> Dressing down a poster who has _repeatedly_ ignored advice or not
> provided asked for info is sometimes necessary.
Agreed
> Yes, Most posters are civil, but can become frustrated. Pointing out
> that they have crossed a line is usually enough.
Agreed
> Depends on content and personalities. Sometimes an impatient, demanding
> OP gets a response from an grumpy, opinionated support poster. If they
> are working out the problem then no harm, no foul.
This is why I say that a "perceived' personal attack should not be the
criteria. That "demanding" OP may think that the "grumpy, opinionated"
poster is making a personal attack when all he's doing is being cranky.
Who's going to make that judgment? If left to the perception of the
OP, then the mods will be removing "cranky" posts . . . and plenty of us
have cranky moments, especially when a novice OP repeatedly asks the
same question and ignores the answer. Not everyone is as patient as a
saint.
> Spam postings and established trolls should be removed immediately and
> without a warning. They are more annoying than the occasional
> personality conflict or frustrated gut response. Posters just
> exhibiting troll-like behavior should get a warning.
Agreed.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 2:38 PM, Phillip Jones, C.E.T.'s opinion was expressed:
> One beacon of sanity on this server is this very group where for the
> most part you can let your hair down a little.
Echo . . .
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>
>> We need to inform the user why he won't see his post, and provide a
>> reference of what the post was. (and include escalation methods if there
>> was an error)
>
> so, what you're suggesting is that all postings go
> through a moderator before its posted.
>
> imo: at the rate they're going now, I think that option
> will be just around the corner.
>
All mozilla groups have one moderator maybe some more .
But in order for an abuse policy as being discussed, to be fairly done.
Each and every newsgroup related to developer, support or otherwise
should demand not less than 3 moderators each. If you don't it won't
work with any reasonable fairness. because each moderator will end up
using his own personalities and biases to base his/her decisions on. It
impossible to believe nor expect *any one* to be absolutely fair. Its
just not possible.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 | [hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto: [hidden email]
<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
< http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 2:52 PM, Phillip Jones, C.E.T.'s opinion was expressed:
> Uh, how about, post with the subject line compliant about a personal
> attack within the newsgroup. and write the the post as To
> administrator(s) please look into the perceived personal attack. action
> at your discretion
>
> click reply to post that has the attack and change subject line to
>
> To administrator about attack was .... (Subject).
A "public" complaint?
I see advantages to this, and disadvantages.
The advantage would be that it would expose the complaint to comment by
cooler minds. One would hope that cooler minds would prevail.
The disadvantage is that this could get into a lengthy argumentative
thread, with nothing getting resolved in the end, 'till the mods stepped
in and imposed their own opinion and actions . . . that may or may not
reflect the consensus.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 2:19 PM, Phillip Jones, C.E.T.'s opinion was expressed:
> On the other hand if some one called me a prickhead son of bitch.
That one is pretty dramatic.
What about a "pencil neck geek"?
Some of us may consider that a compliment, others may consider it a
personal attack.
The list goes on and on. And the mods are going to have take each and
every one and analyze it. A huge task.
And then there's the language barrier too. One time on a forum I said
that a poster was being particularly rude. Turns out that poster's
native tongue was not English and they were using an English idiom
mistakenly. I ended up apologizing for interpreting that as rudeness,
which it WOULD HAVE BEEN if the poster had a command of the English
language.
So are the mods going to demand that foreign tongued posters know the
exact meaning of English idioms? Just one more thing for the mods to
evaluate if they choose to consider the excuse "But English is not
native tongue"
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Chris Ilias wrote:
> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
Chris,
Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes )
If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes)
If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes )
Your comments about these issues (if any).
The fact is, no one reads the Newsgroup posting rules.
Personal attacks should not be allowed, as it disrupts the purpose of
the room; and that's to provide support to others.
If someone is out of line, warn them and reference the rule infraction(s).
If a post is offensive and mixed with valid information, it should still
be removed. Someone else will be more courteous with their response. If
the issue is just between two persons, the warning should go to each
person and a request to stop these types of discussions publicly.
Good evening,
LHenry
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 28.11.2008 15:30, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> _Background_
>> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
>> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
>> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
>> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>>
>>
>> _Personal Attacks_
>> The first rule of etiquette at
>> < http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
>> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>>
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>
>>
>> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
>> are not removed.
>>
>> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
>> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
>> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
>
> Final comment based on all the replies:
>
> My feeling NOW is to abandon the thought of removing personal attacks,
> the reason being that there are just too many definitions as to the
> severity and like Dan said, just what IS a personal attack.
>
> My suggestion:
>
> In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
> idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
> escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
> original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
> mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
> over-police the groups.
>
>
>
Now we are 100% in conflict on this. What you suggest is letting
someone break into your house, as long as he doesn't remove anything.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> IMHO there is no need to
>> over-police the groups.
>
> its geting to that point right now. Whats next? What
> else will they remove next?
>
Got a mirror, Peter? Grin.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
1234567
... 31
|
Locked
