[Discussion] Banning and evidence - Page 10 - maemo.org

Active Topics

[ANNOUNCE] MeeShop - new app store (11)
to Applications by tvandorffy - 34 mins ago
Nokia N900 A-GPS Not Working Anymore (322)
to Nokia N900 by torsen - 3 hrs, 49 mins ago
Longtime users: What device(s) are you using today? (55)
to General by biketool - 5 hrs, 3 mins ago
HTTP-401 Sfos-Builder when using /etc/ssu credentials (0)
to SailfishOS by insanelysexy - 3 days, 8 hrs ago
more...

Page 10 of 12

« First

< Prev

Next >

Thread Tools

	joerg_rw	2013-02-01 , 12:05
	Posts: 2,222 \| Thanked: 12,651 times \| Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3	#91

Originally Posted by chemist

This is 2013 now, tmo got migrated and Staff situation changed slightly but Council did not does not and probably will not have a say on our decissions, they may ask and will be noted but that's about it.

and that's fine, the way it is. In democratic states that's called "separation of powers" and is best remedy to avoid establishing of a dictatorship. I'm German, I know from school what I'm talking about here, since we had some experience in that.

[edit] A comment on some former posts: board has no formal control per se over council either, just in same spirit as above. And my suggestion never got reworded, I just added a comment just like here. More critical spectators would classify both statements I answered on here as lies.
BR
jOERG

__________________
Maemo Community Council member [2012-10, 2013-05, 2013-11, 2014-06 terms]
Hildon Foundation Council inaugural member.
MCe.V. foundation member

EX Hildon Foundation approved Maemo Administration Coordinator (stepped down due to bullying 2014-04-05)
aka "techstaff" - the guys who keep your infra running - Devotion to Duty http://xkcd.com/705/

IRC(freenode): DocScrutinizer*
First USB hostmode fanatic, father of H-E-N

Last edited by joerg_rw; 2013-02-01 at 12:10.

	joerg_rw	2013-02-01 , 12:35
	Posts: 2,222 \| Thanked: 12,651 times \| Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3	#92

Originally Posted by Estel

Wrong. The fact that I'm here, doesn't mean that anyone pardoned JCDenton or aquamarine.

Some moderator abused every rule about how to handle it, deleted innocent's people account and all their posts, indiscriminately, and you're saying that they can make new account, if they want to?! That's really all, what people claiming to be "fair and proper" have to say to those poor fellows?

i'm honestly sorry for any unjustified bans as a colateral damage from IP based bans, and I like to apologize to those who suffered from it.
BUT... ponder who *caused* this misery! It's been a user called Estel that drove moderators and even admins to that last resort of using bans derived from IP, BY HIS EVIL ACTIVITIES.
And, on a sidenote, the forum isn't even allowed to send email to a user whose account got deleted (except when in reply to a mail that user sent), so how would we approach those who decided to complain in abusive speech and then never come back when they got affected by colateral damage of a ban resorting to IP as indication?
AFAIK there's never been a mail to council or tmo admin "Dear tmo, I'm suffering from a ban on my account, please what's the issue?". So no way to respond to those who decided to turn their back at tmo.

BR
jOERG

Last edited by joerg_rw; 2013-02-01 at 13:23.

The Following User Says Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
ladoga

	woody14619	2013-02-01 , 16:59
	Posts: 1,455 \| Thanked: 3,309 times \| Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY	#93

Originally Posted by Estel

Yes, you are wrong. No one unbanned them. Also, WTF you mean by "their simply don't exist, and can create another account at their leuisure".

I mean that one of the accounts was not banned, but removed. Without the IP ban in place, you can now drag your neighbor back over and he can create another account, possibly even with the same name, since that account does not exist..

Originally Posted by Estel

deleted innocent's people account

I'd hardly call the neighbor you pulled over to your house to log into TMO to argue with people on line an "innocent". And if he is innocent, shame on you for getting him involved in the first place.

If this person (assuming he isn't fictitious) really wants to create an account, he can. And if he was really all that upset about it, he could have appealed by mailing Council. Nobody involved, including you, mailed Council about any of this.

While Chemist did note that Council has no direct power here, I think even he would concede that Council has, and may at it's discretion, intervene and lobby on a user's behalf to have a ban lessened or lifted. Mainly because Council only would do so if the majority of it's members felt something was overlooked or special circumstances may not have been known at the time of moderation.

Originally Posted by Estel

It's not only about fact, that moderator who did it *wrong* never excused, is still proud of his doings,

I never saw you apologize for breaking the forum rules on creating a second account. In fact, you just defended that action yesterday, and are "proud of your doings". Should that mean your ban should not have been lifted? Where is your apology for intentionally breaking forum policy?

If you want to hold people to some special standard, be prepared to subject yourself to that standard as well.

__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014

shawnjefferson	2013-02-02 , 07:04
Posts: 254 \| Thanked: 509 times \| Joined on Nov 2011 @ Canada	#94

Originally Posted by chemist

This is 2013 now, tmo got migrated and Staff situation changed slightly but Council did not does not and probably will not have a say on our decissions, they may ask and will be noted but that's about it.

Originally Posted by joerg_rw

and that's fine, the way it is. In democratic states that's called "separation of powers" and is best remedy to avoid establishing of a dictatorship. I'm German, I know from school what I'm talking about here, since we had some experience in that.

AIUI, in the past, Reggie owned and ran the forums, for Nokia. Now HF owns the forums, for the community. I don't remember electing an administrator or moderators of the forums, but I do remember electing both a BoD and a Council. (Don't read into that that I wanted to vote for them or mistrust the decisions made, I voted for Council to run the community and appointing admins and moderators is within that power I believe.) However, I fully expect the council to oversee and exert "control" over the administrators and moderators of TMO, if they start to get out of line (not that anyone is, everyone's doing a great job from what I can see.)

That said, I don't want Council making every decision for the TMO administrators and moderators, as that doesn't make sense. When I made my original suggestion about Council voting on bans, I had in mind the type of "long term" ban that Estel was given (where it's a community member of long standing and a month long ban.) I don't know if it's practical or not, but it seemed like a logical system of checks and balances. I also don't think that Council or BoD should be able to request a ban from TMO, it should only work from the mods up to council, and appeal to BoD (in my proposal).

[edit] A comment on some former posts: board has no formal control per se over council either, just in same spirit as above. And my suggestion never got reworded, I just added a comment just like here. More critical spectators would classify both statements I answered on here as lies.

"Control" is probably not the best term to use, but I also expect BoD to be able to call a Council election (with community support of course), essentially ousting the sitting council if Council gets out of hand, as above, and vice versa.

The entities cannot exist seperately, in my opinion and should not, but rather can oversee each other so that at all levels the community (or a majority of said community) has the ability to change leadership that is not serving the community's interests.

(hopefully I'm not too far wrong, but I admit to not reading every line of the HF bylaws...)

Last edited by shawnjefferson; 2013-02-02 at 07:15.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to shawnjefferson For This Useful Post:
Estel, joerg_rw, woody14619

	joerg_rw	2013-02-02 , 12:40
	Posts: 2,222 \| Thanked: 12,651 times \| Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3	#95

yes, that's basically correct. Both council or board shall be able to revoke an administrator of any maemo segment, and council in consent with board can appoint new admins. Also there probably are mutual means of triggering an election between council and board. But that's how far it goes. The rest is discussion among reasonable sovereign entities / persons.
/j

	fw190	2013-02-02 , 14:43
	Posts: 584 \| Thanked: 700 times \| Joined on Jan 2010	#96

This thread at some point was the mirror ot TMO right now. Not the good old TMO I started to read back in 2009 when I bought my N900. I hope that we will somehowe bring back that attitude. I see some light in the tunnel as new ideas are comming in the last posts. I also hope that someon will remove this stupid tag like un_polish_ed - not funny as I see it. Bringing nationalities into this argument is not good. I'm not trying to stand on any side. I do not even know what is the whole story. The bottom line is that I hope that we all can come to a poitn when we can bring back the attitude of TMO again

__________________
per ardua ad astra

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to fw190 For This Useful Post:
Estel, ffha, marmistrz, michaaa62, panjgoori, shawnjefferson, thedead1440

thedead1440	2013-02-02 , 14:48
Moderator \| Posts: 6,215 \| Thanked: 6,400 times \| Joined on Nov 2011	#97

fw190,

All tags have been cleaned. Thanks for the heads-up on them!

I advice everyone from now on to stay on-topic please.

Thank You!

Last edited by thedead1440; 2013-02-02 at 15:02.

The Following User Says Thank You to thedead1440 For This Useful Post:
fw190

	Dave999	2013-02-02 , 14:55
	Posts: 7,075 \| Thanked: 9,073 times \| Joined on Oct 2009 @ Moon! It's not the East or the West side... it's the Dark Side	#98

Is it saft to say that the admin and moderators can ban anyone they like, whenever they like if so I say that is dictators since theireis no voting or approval process.

__________________
Do something for the climate today! Anything!

I don't trust poeple without a Nokia n900...

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dave999 For This Useful Post:
Estel, Sourav.dubey

thedead1440	2013-02-02 , 15:00
Moderator \| Posts: 6,215 \| Thanked: 6,400 times \| Joined on Nov 2011	#99

Originally Posted by Dave999

Is it saft to say that the admin and moderators can ban anyone they like, whenever they like if so I say that is dictators since theireis no voting or approval process.

No this is wrong. Could you give me examples where Admins/Mods have deliberately banned someone on their whim?

Bans happen based on infraction points accumulated. The rules are transparent and can be found here under "Infractions and Banning".

So no, nobody can choose and just ban on whim and fancy.

Hildon Foundation or Council chose chemist to be the Administrator of TMO from what I remember seeing when volunteers for Administrator were being seeked.

Also read joerg_rw's, Councillor, post just two posts above you to understand how an Administrator can be replaced etc.

Last edited by thedead1440; 2013-02-02 at 15:04.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to thedead1440 For This Useful Post:
anthonie, don_falcone, minimos

reinob	2013-02-04 , 08:43
Posts: 1,808 \| Thanked: 4,272 times \| Joined on Feb 2011 @ Germany	#100

Originally Posted by thedead1440

Bans happen based on infraction points accumulated. The rules are transparent and can be found here under "Infractions and Banning".

So no, nobody can choose and just ban on whim and fancy.

Just one note: although I don't have all the details in my head at the moment, I was well aware of the circumstances before and after Estel's ban.

My impression was that the ban was not the fault of any mod/supermod/admin, but rather a number of individuals who basically were constantly asking the mods/supermods/admin to ban Estel. Either by "reporting" posts, or by directly asking per e-mail, or by whatever other means.

This is where I see the whole problem. I may "report" a post that is clearly spam, or clearly out-of-place-insulting. In my opinion none of Estel's posts fit into those categories, but for some reason other people decided his posts were "worth" reporting.

Now I have no intention of accusing or defending anyone, but I for one would ask mods/supermods to confirm (if this doesn't happen already) whether a reported post actually violates any of the forum rules, and if so, first warn the user (not with a ban, but with an e-mail!) and allow him/her to defend him-/herself.

And similarly, if a mod finds that a user or number of users are abusively reporting posts, they should get the warning/ban.

The Following User Says Thank You to reinob For This Useful Post:
peterleinchen

Page 10 of 12

« First

< Prev

Next >

Active Topics

[ANNOUNCE] MeeShop - new app store (11)

Nokia N900 A-GPS Not Working Anymore (322)

Longtime users: What device(s) are you using today? (55)

HTTP-401 Sfos-Builder when using /etc/ssu credentials (0)