My proposal to forum administration

[dillpicklechips]

Ok bye.  

I am referring to my post not the quoted part. I had just put a horizontal line to designate it. Sorry for the confusion. Just quoted it to emphasize the given solution to the thread's suggestion or whatever.

EDIT: a closing remark to be precise.

[minifrij]

So just locking the thread is a no-op?

I'm not sure what you mean by a no-op, but locking the thread doesn't combat the signature spam in any way. It is essentially telling people 'if you spam fast enough, you can spam and nothing will happen'.

If so, what about those non-spammy posts in it?

Tough luck? The chances of there being a non-spammy post on a thread like 'if bitcoin went to $1 what would you do!!!' are incredibly low anyway.

These will get deleted too, as far as I can see?

Yes.

Did you ever wonder that it is a moderator's job to delete spam posts as fast as possible so that it never comes to deleting the whole thread (provided it wasn't a spam thread right from the start)?

I've been critical of the moderation team in the past for this, however if you are expecting that to happen here after all this time you are being too idealistic. If we're living in the real world, deleting the spam eventually is better than accepting it simply because it is 'old', and is much more likely to happen.
Also, entire threads aren't deleted unless they are majority spam. I haven't got a clue where you get the idea that anything else happens from.

In the OP I meant specifically the threads that are no longer posted in, i.e. necrothreads (I thought it was evident from the context).

You gave no context. Learn to structure your writing better if this is the case.

The threads that are still active and old at that cannot be spammy by definition (as a whole, apart from individual posts)

Wrong. Just because something isn't punished doesn't then change the definition of it.
If I throw litter on the street and it is not moved, does that then mean that I wasn't littering?

(it's no use trying to concoct impossible combinations here as it better suits your point)

Every example of a thread I have used has existed previously. You should probably pay more attention to reading rather than posting if you don't think this is the case.

while deleting them would raise a lot of noise on their own.

I'm struggling to follow what you are saying, but I'm guessing that you mean deleting threads would cause people to do what you are doing currently. In this scenario, just like you have, they will be told to deal with it.

In short, I mean non-spammy abandoned threads created months if not years ago. Why should they ever get deleted and not locked (if necroraising is disallowed)?

They shouldn't, and therefore they aren't. Spam threads, regardless of their age, should be deleted along with all spam posts in them.

Wow, now it's no longer "they thought it would be more appropriate". I guess you are already past the point of back-pedaling this issue. But you may still ask hilarious (if you are really curious)

I think that our different uses of language has made us both confused about what we are talking about. Let me summarize what I understood from the last few points relating to this so that we can possibly understand each other better.

• You said that necroposts were deleted when you felt they shouldn't have been.
• I said that if the staff saw it as appropriate, the posts should have been deleted.
• You then tried to relate said posts to a theoretical situation you came up with previously.
• I gave you a number of questions to try and clear up whether these deleted posts fit within said theoretical situation. I also reaffirmed that, regardless of what you and I think or propose, the staff's decision would be final.
• Instead of answering the questions, you now say that I am back peddling.

Please correct me if I was wrong at any part here, though to me it just seems that you're just avoiding the point.

EDIT: a closing remark to be precise.

I see, my apologies.

[Lauda]

All of a sudden, my post count got diminished by 64 posts this morning

Are we supposed to feel sorry for you?

I don't know which thread got deleted, I don't know who deleted it, I don't even know if I'm somehow involved in that but I do think this is not a good idea at all since this possibility allows easy abuse by moderators if they decide to start a personal vendetta against a certain user by deleting old threads with his posts.

It may be *good* to know which thread was trashed/deleted. Should you know who trashed/deleted it? No. If moderators are risking to get publicly crucified for every decision, they may be reluctant to make one thus making their overall moderation worse.

So my proposal to the forum administration is to disable deletion of old threads (say, older than a few days) by moderators unless given explicit consent by Theymos. Really, if the thread didn't get deleted at once (within a few days), it pretty much means that it is worth staying here, while deleting an old thread feels like a spit in the face of the posters

This proposal is one of the worst that I've seen so far. This will never work (unless theymos promotes a few more admins that actually respond to all sensible PMs), nor is there a reason to do so.

- If your account is fairly old, then previous post-count recounts will have counted your MOVED: redirection topics, even though these are not counted when you make them. I fixed it this time so that these topics are not counted, undoing the previous erroneous recounts.

Ouch. My post count tanked by ~1000 due to this?

[deisik]

Wow, now it's no longer "they thought it would be more appropriate". I guess you are already past the point of back-pedaling this issue. But you may still ask hilarious (if you are really curious)

I think that our different uses of language has made us both confused about what we are talking about. Let me summarize what I understood from the last few points relating to this so that we can possibly understand each other better.

• You said that necroposts were deleted when you felt they shouldn't have been.
• I said that if the staff saw it as appropriate, the posts should have been deleted.
• You then tried to relate said posts to a theoretical situation you came up with previously.
• I gave you a number of questions to try and clear up whether these deleted posts fit within said theoretical situation. I also reaffirmed that, regardless of what you and I think or propose, the staff's decision would be final.
• Instead of answering the questions, you now say that I am back peddling.

Please correct me if I was wrong at any part here, though to me it just seems that you're just avoiding the point.

You may want to read your comments and my replies again

Basically, you at first claimed one thing, namely, that it is impossible to happen ("using scenarios that didn't happen and likely wouldn't happen"). When I told that it already happened (ask hilarious if you doubt my words), you changed your stance 180 degrees and started claiming that "they [moderators] thought it would be more appropriate". Then you again all of a sudden changed your position basically trashing your previous stance (that moderators know it better and no further questions should be asked). I think you understand there is no sense in discussing the matter any more on my part. You can try to shift your stance as much and as often as you please, but do it elsewhere. Hope this helps

[Lauda]

You may try to shift your stance as much as you please, but do it elsewhere

People are not allowed to change their stance on an on-going discussion? Please tell me more.

[deisik]

You may try to shift your stance as much as you please, but do it elsewhere

People are not allowed to change their stance on an on-going discussion? Please tell me more.

They are certainly allowed, but they risk not being taken seriously if they flip-flop a bit too often

So my proposal to the forum administration is to disable deletion of old threads (say, older than a few days) by moderators unless given explicit consent by Theymos. Really, if the thread didn't get deleted at once (within a few days), it pretty much means that it is worth staying here, while deleting an old thread feels like a spit in the face of the posters

This proposal is one of the worst that I've seen so far. This will never work (unless theymos promotes a few more admins that actually respond to all sensible PMs), nor is there a reason to do so

As to me, your proposal to introduce the "banned" rank is simply incomparable

In respect to the amount of devastation and damage that it would have caused and made if it had been accepted. As I told, I don't see any reason in deleting old threads apart from a rogue moderator starting a vendetta against a certain user. To avoid this, old threads should get locked after they remain inactive for a specified amount of time. As I also mentioned, I have seen users punished just for raising a necrothread (namely, all the new posts to this thread got deleted and these posts were no spam by any means). Locking such threads after some expire period would effectively prevent this (if necroraising is not allowed)

Ouch. My post count tanked by ~1000 due to this?

Enjoy the pain as they would say. It's not a big deal anyway, right? After all, "the forum doesn't owe you a living"

[Lauda]

They are certainly allowed, but they risk not being taken seriously if they flip-flop a bit too often

Sounds like you're not on the winning side of an argument.

As to me, your proposal to introduce the "banned" rank is simply incomparable

In respect to the amount of devastation and damage that it would have caused and made if it had been accepted.

Damage to account farmers, signature spammers and the people who cry when their post count goes down?

As I told, I don't see any reason in deleting old threads apart from a rogue moderator starting a vendetta against a certain user.

Number of times that this has happened: 0. The value of solving issues which do not exist is, exactly 0.

Ouch. My post count tanked by ~1000 due to this?

Enjoy the pain as they would say. It's not a big deal, right?

It is irrelevant for me, but I wonder whether I am the person who lost the most amount (absolute wise, not percentage wise).

[minifrij]

Basically, you at first claimed one thing, namely, that it is impossible to happen ("using scenarios that didn't happen and likely wouldn't happen").

This was in reply to your theoretical situation where a moderator would go on a streak of deleting one user's posts specifically due to a personal vendetta. That quote was also in regards to Lauda being promoted to a Global Moderator.

When I told that it already happened (ask hilarious if you doubt my words)

What you said was that posts in a necrod thread were deleted, not the theoretical situation you came up with (This isn't the same as what I was replying to in the first point). I tried to later clarify this.

you changed your stance 180 degrees and started claiming that "they [moderators] thought it would be more appropriate".

Which is true. As it is not the theoretical situation that you were talking about (which I tried to point out to you by asking you the questions that you ignored), it is completely fine for a moderator to do what they feel as most appropriate when dealing with posts made on a necrod thread.

Then you again all of a sudden changed your position basically trashing your previous stance (that moderators know it better and no further questions should be asked).

Which is what will happen on this forum, regardless of what nobodies such as you and I think about it. This isn't my personal stance, this is outlining that we have very little say in what goes on with the moderation.


To make my stance absolutely crystal clear to you, I think that your theoretical situation (that I will quote here):

apart from a rogue moderator starting a vendetta against a certain user.

is extremely improbable to ever happen. In the example that you gave (Lauda's extortion), the subject (Lauda) would have been unable to carry out said theoretical due to their status as only a staff member (Not a Global Moderator). In the very rare event that this would happen, I would not condone this and would rally for the moderator behind it to be removed from their position of power. I would not rally for important tools to be removed from use.

I think that it is absolutely fine for necrod posts to be removed from the forum by moderators, providing that they don't give anything useful to the conversation (which they usually don't, whether it be useless spam, an answer to a question that has already been answered or a number of other factors). I would then agree with you that, if these spam posts have been removed, the thread should be locked to prevent any further spam.

I think that it is absolutely fine for spam threads (such as those mentioned by hilariousandco here):

utter shit threads in gambling discussion or off topic like is 0.002 bitcoin a good amount to gamble with or what time do you wake up in the morning etc after they have quickly been spammed to death.

to be completely removed regardless of their age or the amount of posts in them.

Finally, regardless of what you and I think, moderators will do whatever they see fit when it comes to moderating the forum and there is very little that you or I can do about it.

Hope you can follow this.

[deisik]

Ouch. My post count tanked by ~1000 due to this?

Enjoy the pain as they would say. It's not a big deal, right?

It is irrelevant for me, but I wonder whether I am the person who lost the most amount (absolute wise, not percentage wise).

I'm also utterly curious how you managed to get so many non-existent posts

is extremely improbable to ever happen. In the example that you gave (Lauda's extortion), the subject (Lauda) would have been unable to carry out said theoretical due to their status as only a staff member (Not a Global Moderator). In the very rare event that this would happen, I would not condone this and would rally for the moderator behind it to be removed from their position of power. I would not rally for important tools to be removed from us

I'm afraid that this is not the case

I don't know if that's true (though I think it is), but, according to hilarious, "all staff can delete or trashcan a thread as long as it is in their jurisdiction". So it seems that this is not as theoretical as you want it to appear. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with preventing such situations from happening before they actually come about since everything happens for the first time one day. Basically, it is just a matter of time. I guess when Satoshi started this forum, he couldn't even imagine that it would become a source of income for so many people. I don't mean just sig campaigners, you should also include here campaign managers, people advertising their services, and even moderators themselves (and I don't know whom else)

[Lauda]

I'm also curious how you got that many of non-existent posts

It's related to the Moved threads. I have often not left them, but due to my high activity whilst moderating their count must have been high.

I don't know if that's true (I think it is), but, according to hilarious, "all staff can delete or trashcan a thread as long as it is in their jurisdiction".

Jurisdiction means: Section that they moderate. If you look closely, a single moderator couldn't do much in his "personal vendetta" conquest.

In fact, I don't see anything wrong with preventing such situations from happening before they actually come around since everything happens for the first time one day. Basically, it is just a matter of time.

It has never happened, and in expectancy of it happening once we should do this? Seems to be the opposite of normalcy bias.

[minifrij]

I don't know if that's true (I think it is), but, according to hilarious, "all staff can delete or trashcan a thread as long as it is in their jurisdiction".

Jurisdiction means: Section that they moderate. If you look closely, a single moderator couldn't do much in his "personal vendetta" conquest.

Precisely. As I mentioned earlier, you can avoid your theoretical situation happening (by anyone other than a Global Moderator or Administrator) by avoiding the sections moderated by the staff member you do not trust. However, if you do not trust the staff to do their jobs properly it is questionable whether you should be on the forum at all.

It is irrelevant for me, but I wonder whether I am the person who lost the most amount (absolute wise, not percentage wise).

I believe Mitchell lost more than you, did he not?

[deisik]

In fact, I don't see anything wrong with preventing such situations from happening before they actually come around since everything happens for the first time one day. Basically, it is just a matter of time.

It has never happened, and in expectancy of it happening once we should do this? Seems to be the opposite of normalcy bias.

Let's cut the crap here

You may twist the facts as much as you want with your buddy minifrij but you were a moderator (by whatever name), and you were kicked for doing something which a moderator is not allowed to do (and what many mods still do at every other forum out there). I don't know the details of that story since I'm not very much interested in such stories in general (maybe, you had some reason behind your actions after all, I don't know). But personally, to me, blackmailing someone (as it was rumored) is a lot heavier "crime" than just stealthily deleting posts of some user which you may not quite like (heck, that might be a real crime that could put you in a real jail). So please don't tell me about "the opposite of normalcy bias", I'm not that kind of person (I don't know what you meant to say anyway)

[Muhammed Zakir]

I believe everything there is to be discussed about this proposal is already discussed. Is there any reason to continue this discussion?

In fact, I don't see anything wrong with preventing such situations from happening before they actually come around since everything happens for the first time one day. Basically, it is just a matter of time.

It has never happened, and in expectancy of it happening once we should do this? Seems to be the opposite of normalcy bias.

Let's cut the crap here

You may twist the facts as much as you want with your buddy minifrij but you were a moderator (by whatever name), and you were kicked for doing something which a moderator is not allowed to do. I don't know the details of that story since I'm not very much interested in such stories in general (maybe, you had some reason behind your actions after all, I don't know). But personally, to me, blackmailing someone is a lot heavier "crime" than just stealthily deleting posts of some user which you may not quite like. So please don't tell me about "the opposite of normalcy bias"

When did that happen? Can someone give me a link to a detailed thread(if any)?

[minifrij]

You may twist the facts as much as you want with your buddy minifrij

I don't care about your interpretation of what Lauda is saying, but don't accuse me of twisting facts. I've done nothing but tell (what I know as) the truth about forum moderation and how I feel it should be done. If I am wrong about anything I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about.

If you're not able to listen to my viewpoint and discuss it with me without insulting me and trying to make it out as if I'm trying to mislead you and others, you shouldn't be on a space where people don't agree with you. Try going to your local church, if you're lucky there will be an echo big enough so you can hear what you want to.

When did that happen? Can someone give me a link to a detailed thread(if any)?

IIRC shorena linked it to you when you rejoined the forum, but here it is again.

[Lauda]

Let's cut the crap here
-snip-

"Let's cut the crap" -> proceeds to post ad hominem because your argument had been destroyed. Very indulging my young padawan. It does not seem like they teach logic at your school.

[deisik]

If you're not able to listen to my viewpoint and discuss it with me without insulting me and trying to make it out as if I'm trying to mislead you and others, you shouldn't be on a space where people don't agree with you. Try going to your local church, if you're lucky there will be an echo big enough so you can hear what you want to

As to me, you are doing exactly that

Right now you are obviously trying to play a victim here, but I can only repeat to you what I just told Lauda, I'm not that kind of person who can be easily fooled with such tactics. After all, you are free to leave at any moment if you feel insulted or anything to that tune. No one is forcing you to post here, and I certainly won't miss you (good riddance). Other than that, I will just quote below your first post in this thread (just in case you choose to change it), so that anyone could check and decide for themselves whether you are misleading others and what kind of discussion you are really looking for (this is not intended as an offense but exclusively for the sake of fairness):

Despite all of the needlessly long paragraphs, all I gathered from this was 'I had less than 0.5% of my posts removed and now I want moderators to be stripped of one of their most important abilities so that I don't lose out on any more precious signature campaign earnings'. I don't think this is worthy of any attention by moderators or administrators

I don't know how that could be interpreted as a "viewpoint" which I should listen to. I sincerely hope you won't mind me leaving this quote here

Let's cut the crap here
-snip-

"Let's cut the crap" -> proceeds to post ad hominem because your argument had been destroyed. Very indulging my young padawan. It does not seem like they teach logic at your school.

You can pack up and go home too

[minifrij]

Right now you are obviously trying to play a victim here, but I can only repeat to you what I just told Lauda, I'm not that kind of person who can be easily fooled with such tactics.

Perhaps I am trying to play the victim, though I don't believe I am 'fooling' anyone with it. There is nothing for me to fool anyone with. I've made my point of view extremely clear, and yet you disregard both it and me by telling me I am trying to mislead people.
However, if anything it shows that you have nothing to back up your argument with. Thank you for making that clear.

Other than that, I will just quote below your first post in this thread (just in case you choose to change it), so that anyone could check and decide for themselves whether you are misleading others and what kind of discussion you are really looking for (this is not intended as an offense but exclusively for the sake of fairness)

I don't believe that I was misleading anything or anyone by posting my opinion on why you're making this thread. Saying that I think you're doing this simply out of greed does not constitute as me trying to 'twist the facts'.
In addition, the discussion that I was looking for is exactly what happened. You gave me your point of view, and I gave you mine. I wished that it could have ended differently, but such is.

I can now see that I will be wasting my time trying to discuss things like adults with you, so I will simply leave you to your own little bubble. Best of luck with your proposal.

[criptix]

Can we just ban sig campaigns please? 

Sig campaigns are like donations to sub sahara Africa. It just makes the situation worst for the people.

Anyway deisik is an idiot whom you cant have a discussion with.
He always sidesteps arguments and changes topics.

[deisik]

I can now see that I will be wasting my time trying to discuss things like adults with you, so I will simply leave you to your own little bubble. Best of luck with your proposal

What's the difference between a Frenchman and a Jew?

The Frenchman leaves without saying goodbye, and the Jew says goodbye but never leaves (while the Russian never says goodbye and never leaves). I guess you shouldn't have come here in the first place. At first you were trying to victimize me, then flip-flopped and tried to make a victim out of yourself. Playing someone is right about fooling everyone else into thinking that you are not who or what you are. Further, your whole message (as quoted in my post above) is meaningless since people are complaining about their posts deleted irrespective of whether they post for free or for a remuneration. The latter just adds more injury to the insult. I guess even outright shitposters like the dude above wouldn't be quite happy to see their posts removed for no reason at all (though in the latter case the reason should be pretty obvious). That's why discussing anything with you was an exercise in futility right from the start. I hope this could help you see some light at last and finally find some piece of mind

I'm also curious how you got that many of non-existent posts

It's related to the Moved threads

So instead of actual posting you were just busy removing other posters' threads and kinda trashed like 1,000 threads during the times of your moderation? Good for you! That's what I call a hardcore moderation, lol. But somehow I am not surprised at all. I'm just curious how many threads would get deleted if it were reflected in your post count too



Well, now I start to understand theymos

[shield132]

Just curious what I see here. deisik there is no doubt you opened this thread because of lost posts in signature campaign (because everything starts from coinroll sig thread).
I read some of your previous post and please answer me, what negative effect did bitcoin economy get from deleting some old threads? If you really care so much about bitcoin, than why did your talk start from coinroll's thread?

moderator starting a vendetta against a certain user.

Not only moderators started vendetta against you but theymos and even satoshi tries everything to get you down, haha.
Don't act like bitcoin lover, you are money lover and that's all, even from 2013 it seems how you "hate" campaigns, just see your sent trusts. Everytime trust is because of campaign payment. You can't hide trust.

This thread is made because you only carries about your campaign, there is no doubt. If not, just leave sig forwvwr and do your best in bitcoin economy developing. (you won't do this in your entire life).
Truth is trusth, we can't hide it in most cases.