Celestia Forums

I have updated the Forum Guidelines.

Specifically, I have enumerated the various points and added several clarifications. Nothing has been deleted.

Please review them. Some people seem to have forgotten some of them.

Selden,

at least for my understanding of English, your "clarifications" make things (partly) less clear.

Selden wrote:It is not for discussing individuals
who may or may not meet with your approval.

So if someone discusses e.g. some personal facts about Gagarin (<- an individual, meeting his approval) that might be relevant for various aspects in modelling spacecraft , this might also be a reason to lock the thread or forbid his login to the forum...?

In other words, your specification "individual" seems way too general for the purpose you have in mind.

You're right.

I'll try to clarify my clarification... *sigh*

As to locking the Celestia 1.5.0 pre thread I really think this is an inadequate measure.

We all know Daniel. He's just hard to have around without an occasional "kick" (this time justifyably from Malenfant).

It is a big disadvantage for the transparency of the forum, however, if such highly relevant threads like Celestia 1.5.0 pre are locked, just because of some formal violation of your "rules".

Your action violates another more important (implicit) criterion, though:

Always apply common sense for the benefit of communication among users!

Fridger,

I am simply losing patience with people who insist on ranting in public when private communications are available to correct these issues. *I* am the person who is being offended by such misbehavior. It is not a matter of "formal violations" of rules.

"Private communications" - in my experience - don't solve a darn thing though.

If you have issues with someone ranting about things in public, Selden, then why do you let people like daniel start off the rant in the first place? You surely know this is going to be flamebait from the outset. And (for once) I agree with Fridger - locking threads is not a solution - especially when there's only a minority of posts that are derailing the subject of the thread. Heck, why are you ranting *here* in public about people not taking things to private communication?

Also, keep in mind that a moderator's job is to enforce the rules, and do to that objectively. Whether you're personally offended by anything doesn't matter - if it breaks the rules, deal with it. If not, then you'll have to live with it like everyone else.

I'm in favour of strong moderation and clearly defined rules of behaviour - that way everyone knows the limits and lines they must not cross. However, it's going too far now - lately we've had instances where you've threatened to lock threads for harmless phrases that some overly paranoid, hypersensitive people might take as offensive. We shouldn't have to be walking on eggshells here. It's political correctness taken to insane levels, and we seem to have gone from one extreme of "no moderation" to a very invasive regime of "anything you say may be offensive". I'm buggered if I'm going to write every post as a formally phrased letter so as to avoid anything that might offend people - it's getting to the point where it's becoming difficult to have normal discussions.

It's just getting silly now. Personally I don't see a problem in commenting on peoples' behaviour, as long as actual insults aren't thrown (whether the target takes it personally isn't really relevant. So long as one isn't calling them names and just commenting on their behaviour then I don't see a problem). If there's a problem with someone's behaviour (like daniel's) then darn straight other people in the community should be able to express that (in a non-insulting manner) when we need to - we shouldn't have to wait for moderators to tell them off privately. Especially if they just ignore the moderator when they tell them off in private anyway. Sometimes public pressure from peers is more effective than a private ticking off from a moderator.

Malenfant wrote:"Private communications" - in my experience - don't solve a darn thing though.

If you have issues with someone ranting about things in public, Selden, then why do you let people like daniel start off the rant in the first place? You surely know this is going to be flamebait from the outset. And (for once) I agree with Fridger - locking threads is not a solution - especially when there's only a minority of posts that are derailing the subject of the thread. Heck, why are you ranting *here* in public about people not taking things to private communication?
...

My saying in a sequence of private mails to Selden. But it seems without success.

I didn't do anything publicly about Daniel's posting because by the time I saw it people already were writng reasonable responses.

Until someone wrote something unreasonable.

Just to make it even more clear:

If you don't like one of Daniel's (or anyone's) posts *tell me immediately in a PM*. I get an e'mailed notice of the arrival of PMs. I don't get notices when new topics are created.

Yes, but your definition of "unreasonable" doesn't seem to tally with what was in the guidelines (as they stood at the time). Do you think it's better to allow someone to start a thread with more of his usual demands, that you know is going to rile someone up - or do you think it's better to stomp on people who do predictably (and justifiably) react to something that's already there?

Pointing out the behaviour of someone who is continually complaining and being unconstructive or unhelpful isn't in any way shape or form an "attack" - it's a valid criticism based on what that person is doing. Where's it going to end? Is it going to be an "attack" if we criticise someone's work because we don't like how they're creating it?

Daniel was not "demanding" anything. He was asking. Note he even has a smiley in his original message at the top of the thread.

Misinterpreting the tone of a typed message is too easy to do, including seeing something you're expecting but which really isn't there.

A smiley doesn't mean anything though. I can say "I hate so and so, and hope he rots! ", that doesn't make it any less of an insult with the smiley.

Maybe I did jump down his throat a bit, but it's not a big leap to figure out why he's asking (again) where the next version of Celestia is. And when he's pointed to a version that he can use (and you'll note that someone else did that without being "unreasonable" earlier in the thread), he still complained about it . I pointed that out in the bit you deleted from my post, and that's what caused me to be "unreasonable", because I just again saw him complaining when he had a workable solution right in front of him. So are you surprised that people get exasperated then?

Just because you feel exasperated is no reason to act out in public. You can't control what other people do, but you can control what you do.

My two cents.

Personally I found the Selden's guidelines quite clear and reasonable.

Written communications is prone to misunderstanding so a basic set of rules is very appropriate. Unfortunately I think that a lot of people hasn't red those guidelines.

We all want to have fun, this is the most important thing!
A polite and tolerant environment IMHO is essential.

Kind regards

selden wrote:Just because you feel exasperated is no reason to act out in public. You can't control what other people do, but you can control what you do.

Here I disagree basically. The forum is not a /call center/ where success is measured in units of "emotionless = robotlike friendlyness" .

Certainly one may influence others with strongly focussed dialog, including a certain amount of rhetoric attack! This is perfectly admissible in serious dialogs, and in no way diminishes the reputation of the parties involved (unlike your usual claim). Whenever there is something at stake, dialogs DO involve emotions, yet emotions that MUST be perfectly controlled, of course.

I think, for example, that Malenfant contributed to maintaining a good forum standard by not letting Daniel go on and on with his usual impatient nagging about the next version of Celestia!

I must say, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this kind of censorship. Posts being deleted, threads being locked, etc... As long as messages are not spam and about Celestia I don't see any reason for any of this.

People are responsible for what they post, and if they post stupid or offending things let the readers be the judge. This is just 'speech', noone's being harmed.

Once again, this just shows the shortcomings of web forums, on a mailing list each subscriber maintains his or her own kill file and there is little use for a moderator.

Christophe wrote:I must say, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this kind of censorship. Posts being deleted, threads being locked, etc...
...

Christophe,

very well expressed, what upsets me since a long while...
We are not teenage "no future" guys or the like...

Fridger,

Yes, this does seem to be a fundamental difference in opinion. It seems to me that this is one reason you and Malenfant often are at loggerheads -- both of you enjoy public spats.

Very few other people do.

selden wrote:Fridger,

Yes, this does seem to be a fundamental difference in opinion. It seems to me that this is one reason you and Malenfant often are at loggerheads -- both of you enjoy public spats.

Very few other people do.

Which does not preclude that I am taking his party, if I am convinced of the issue! I have no personal stakes in the present discussion. Moreover, notice that despite our repeated clashes, Malenfant and I never manage to ignore each other for longer periods in forum discussions!

I don't see this fact negative. While having different opinions about many things, I don't think we find each other boring

Er, I don't "enjoy public spats". Believe me, I'd rather not waste my time arguing with people. But sometimes aggravating situations start and are allowed to carry on with nobody willing to do anything about them, and eventually I feel obliged to comment. And then of course I get yelled at for it, but then I wouldn't have had to say anything if the situation had been nipped in the bud earlier...

There's a fine line a moderator has to walk here between being so invasive that people feel they can't have normal conversations, and being so invisible that people feel they can get away with saying anything. You've got to be able to identify the flamebait threads and so on without jumping on people for innocent comments. And you've got to be able to recognise an active troublemaker and distinguish them from people who are just reacting to them.