-
For sure people need places to discuss those things. But if I'm interpreting Dave's rules properly: the Eevblog forum is not such a place. There are plenty of other online fora where you can debate politics, religion and what not.
I agree.
The problem is that over the past few years it has become normal and accepted to tell blatant lies and demonise political opponents. That toxic behaviour is spreading into all aspects of society. This forum is no exception.
Putin has won; welcome to the Weimar Republic. -
Er.... He has written (my emphasis)
... but should someone have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre... absolutely..
QuoteReduction ad absurdum is only a valid tactic if you apply it to the actual statement that the person has made. krish2487 did not claim here to be a free speech absolutist, he used the term "the freedom of expression that Dave and other moderators here provided him" and didn't even explicitly advocate that position.
See above.
And once again you have done what you accuse others of--trimming quotes to misrepresent the poster's intent. Reread krishna2487's post and tell me if your snip fairly represents his position. Do you believe that people should be prohibited from shouting "Fire!" in crowded theater if there actually is a fire? -
Presumably you also feel, as a free speech absolutist, that it is acceptable to shout "fire" in a crowded club/theatre, or to knowingly spout lies?
This is an example of you displaying the same sort of toxic behavior that you accuse others of--in this case, misstating someone's position and then skewering that misstatment.
Er.... He has written (my emphasis)... but should someone have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre... absolutely..
QuoteReduction ad absurdum is only a valid tactic if you apply it to the actual statement that the person has made. krish2487 did not claim here to be a free speech absolutist, he used the term "the freedom of expression that Dave and other moderators here provided him" and didn't even explicitly advocate that position.
See above.QuoteLook in the mirror, the troll might be you. TBH, I've been guilty of that too once in a while.
If I used "their" techniques, then "they" have no right to complain. But often - as in this case - "they" do complain and shout "foul".
1. You made your statement before I replied to your post.
2. You misrepresented my post by taking it out of context . I clearly gave a situation where it is absolutely okay if someone shouts fire in a theatre.. Now according to you, noone should do that either isnt it ? You have just quoted a small part of the entire sentence and distorted its meaning to suit your argument.
3. I fail to see how my being a free speech absolutist or not, in any way dilutes the validity of my statement that Teslacoil was responsible for his actions and consequently was responsible for how he felt in the forum. Please disagree / address that statement instead of attacking my motives / intentions / leanings..
Lets leave what I am and what I believe in for another discussion. -
I have the suspicion that some members have learned/decided to "weaponise" the mod's limited time and attention. The basic technique is to be sufficiently objectionable that other members become intemperate, then report a post to the mods. The mods look at that post and (understandably) don't have the time/effort/inclination to understand the entire thread, so delete that post.
I have suspected that as well after noticing a pattern with certain members. I've only reported one member over the years that I can think of.
If they took a hard stance to temp ban anyone commenting on politics, religion, race, sexual preference. I don't see that ever happening.I don't spend a lot of time on the forum these days, firstly after the whole TEA bust up, secondly because I have better things to do with my time and thirdly because it's turned into a cesspit of fucking morons.
It's all blackjack and hookers....
-
I have the suspicion that some members have learned/decided to "weaponise" the mod's limited time and attention. The basic technique is to be sufficiently objectionable that other members become intemperate, then report a post to the mods. The mods look at that post and (understandably) don't have the time/effort/inclination to understand the entire thread, so delete that post.
I would not overthink about this. In the end, this is an electronics forum with clear rules about off-topic and personal attacks. Even without context, it can be seen from a post alone if it's off-topic, or attacking others, or otherwise against the rules. It is however true that moderators here are very inconsistent. They don't fairly delete all the posts that deserve to be deleted. But it's a different problem to what you describe. Follow the logic: there is nothing wrong in deleting the message; the problem is with not deleting others.
Which is exactly what I demonstrated before by pointing my finger to Dave at one of those messages that are both clearly against the rules, and formulated in a way that is likely to generate more off-topic responses. In other words, I tried to do the opposite of the pattern you are afraid of existing: show the origin of the gaming.
I have had my posts deleted (or me being "warned") a few times in a way that I felt very unfair at the time. In my mind, the moderators "should have" looked at the whole context. I felt I'm not the bad guy, but just triggered into writing what I wrote, with others being at fault. In the end, it doesn't matter. My posts were wrong, too, and rightfully edited/deleted/me being warned. I'm very happy as a whole how moderation here works, and the best you can do is to try to Do The Right Thing and stay within rules yourself; try not to respond to trolls. I know it is difficult. -
I have the suspicion that some members have learned/decided to "weaponise" the mod's limited time and attention. The basic technique is to be sufficiently objectionable that other members become intemperate, then report a post to the mods. The mods look at that post and (understandably) don't have the time/effort/inclination to understand the entire thread, so delete that post.
I agree. I have spotted this tactic as well even leading to banning members. -
Ah, a classic way of shutting down a reasonable discourse. No evidence, of course, but that no longer matters. Alternative facts rulez.
I don't know what you are even about. I'm quoting something posted three months ago and pointing out the unreasonable attitude of somebody ranting angrily about "free speech" and "libertarians" in a thread where people are tired of corporate censorship. Sorry if your rant is so damn serious and important that you can't stand people not taking it seriously, but I guess that just proves my point about SJW...QuoteI think he grew frustrated with people not caring much about his posts and kept decreasing his effort. Which is positive feedback in itself, but also he mostly posted in question threads and people (usually beginners) asking those questions typically just wanted specific answers to their problem, not walls of text, so maybe the whole thing was doomed. He probably should have been running a blog or a yoot00b channel or something like that instead.
That's an wild-arsed unsupported assertion that just happens to suit your agenda.
To be exact, I meant to refer to the part about his technical posts getting increasingly hard to read over the years, but I ended up quoting a whole bunch more. -
I have the suspicion that some members have learned/decided to "weaponise" the mod's limited time and attention. The basic technique is to be sufficiently objectionable that other members become intemperate, then report a post to the mods. The mods look at that post and (understandably) don't have the time/effort/inclination to understand the entire thread, so delete that post.
I agree. I have spotted this tactic as well even leading to banning members.
The "treez" case would be a classic example. However, since tggzzz was clearly part of that bully ring (which he of course won't admit), he probably does not mean that one but something else.
In the end, the treez guy ended up breaking many forum rules so the ban was deserved, of course, so I'm not blaming the moderators for that. He wasn't strong enough to constrain himself. However the story could be different without the mob who made sure to amplify the negative aspects and dismiss the positives (interestingly, majority of treez' output was spot-on on-topic - electronics and power electronic design -, much more than many prominent posters who mostly post links to political youtube videos).
Treez was banned because the combination of "getting too many reports" and actually breaking the rules. So this becomes again a "others could be banned too" question more than "treez was incorrectly banned", which he wasn't. So yeah, he should have got his act together. Tip of the day: if you feel like you are being manipulated into doing something against the rules, take a deep breath, calm down and follow the rules to the letter. This is the best revenge you can have against your bullies. It is not easy though.
I don't think there has been a single case of a ban where the member would not have clearly and significantly broke the rules, though, so I don't blame the moderators. But the stalker-like treez bully mob actions left me with a nasty feeling about some people who contribute very little but were very active in the bully mob, like jonpaul for example. -
I have the suspicion that some members have learned/decided to "weaponise" the mod's limited time and attention. The basic technique is to be sufficiently objectionable that other members become intemperate, then report a post to the mods. The mods look at that post and (understandably) don't have the time/effort/inclination to understand the entire thread, so delete that post.
I would not overthink about this. In the end, this is an electronics forum with clear rules about off-topic and personal attacks. Even without context, it can be seen from a post alone if it's off-topic, or attacking others, or otherwise against the rules. It is however true that moderators here are very inconsistent. They don't fairly delete all the posts that deserve to be deleted. But it's a different problem to what you describe. Follow the logic: there is nothing wrong in deleting the message; the problem is with not deleting others.
While there's validity there, it isn't that simple.
It is fundamentally worth understanding how a system, any system, can be gamed, so that such gaming can be spotted and challenged if necessary.
It is impossible to delete all the posts that "deserve" to be deleted, and leave the others. There cannot be useful test for the posts that fall into a grey area; too many value judgements are involved and too many people cannot be impartial. Such deletion will obscure/invalidate the subsequent discussion.QuoteWhich is exactly what I demonstrated before by pointing my finger to Dave at one of those messages that are both clearly against the rules, and formulated in a way that is likely to generate more off-topic responses. In other words, I tried to do the opposite of the pattern you are afraid of existing: show the origin of the gaming.
I have had my posts deleted (or me being "warned") a few times in a way that I felt very unfair at the time. In my mind, the moderators "should have" looked at the whole context. I felt I'm not the bad guy, but just triggered into writing what I wrote, with others being at fault. In the end, it doesn't matter. My posts were wrong, too, and rightfully edited/deleted/me being warned. I'm very happy as a whole how moderation here works, and the best you can do is to try to Do The Right Thing and stay within rules yourself; try not to respond to trolls. I know it is difficult.
I think I've had a post silently deleted. That based on a recollection that I've made a post, and not being able to find the whole section of the thread that I think contained it.. "Rewriting history" is something I'm allergic to
Generally the moderation here is good and appropriate. Yes, mistakes have been and will be made; life is imperfect.
More importantly, even if moderation was improved (by my definition), that wouldn't solve the problem. Over the past year there have been more and more threads that shouldn't be moderated, but which I feel devalue the overall value of the forum. Hence I reluctantly ignore 31 members and ~200 threads[1]. I suspect TiN, T3slacoil, and others have a similar feeling. I am pretty certain bd feels that way, and he definitely won't be returning; his future contributions are lost.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about that.
[1] no idea what proportion of those are merely innocuous uninteresting threads -
IMHO your current forum rules to stay away from politics and religion works well. The big social media would be much better places if they had similar rules.
While I agree that rule to forbid politics and religion is great here (because it's an electronics forum), I think we need places where we can discuss politics and religion. It's pretty important for our modern-day Western ideas of democracy, free speech etc.
For sure people need places to discuss those things. But if I'm interpreting Dave's rules properly: the Eevblog forum is not such a place. There are plenty of other online fora where you can debate politics, religion and what not.
What I don't understand is, if the interpretation given above is correct and that's the MO for the site, then why are some of these threads allowed to exist? I'm not in favour of heavy handed micro-moderation but, to take the case in recent point, to my mind the Thunderf00t thread has absolutely no relevancy or value to the topic of EE, the EE industry or EE education. From the OP's first post, there was no attempt to address any scientific or technical debate or interest. It was a purely ideological, ad hominem statement, and anyone could see how it would simply and immediately lapse into a partisan slanging match. In my world view, it should have been deleted as soon as it was noticed, as being completely off topic and likely to become highly political. There are a million and one other outlets in which to have that particular conversation. YMMV.
Similarly, I can't find a good argument for allowing the thread on the subject of how best to electrocute pigs to go on for as long as it did. True, there's at least aspects of biological and physical sciences involved but really? That's an optic that is wanted for a community of electronic engineers, fledging and accomplished?
Maybe if the clearly pathological threads were excised at or close to their inception, then the tone of the remaining 99% might just settle down a bit. -
I suspect TiN, T3slacoil, and others have a similar feeling.
Possibly. Or you are just using their names in underlining your own opinions. As I said above, using their names to drive a point about a forum atmosphere ignores by far the most important aspect: the effects of their own personal lives (which we really should not and can not speculate about), and their own personal actions on the forum (or lack thereof).
Also: people come and go. It is completely normal to lose interest in something; it just stops being enjoyable. Sometimes it just is, without a fault of anyone. I have just stopped writing on some forums, like APUG (film photography forum) or diyelectriccar. It is well possible that some speculated over there about the reasons why I "left", when the only real reasons are that I lost interest, regardless of what others were saying or not saying.
It is also easy to utilize one's own growing disinterest by making a so-called "ragequit" - when you would be "quitting" anyway. I have done that myself and I don't like myself a lot for that.
I would really like to still see the contributions of what T3sl4co1l was back, say, 5 years ago. But I don't want to remember him from the explosive personal "you are a nazi" attacks wrapped in "oh I'm only speaking generally" disclaimers. I hate that kind of social gaming. It's like shouting "I don't actually mean what I'm saying next but THERE'S A FIRE IN THE THEATER!!!" And I was so surprised and saddened to see this kind of behavior exactly because I remember T3sl4co1l being pretty understanding in the business of human emotions and interactions. He also showed a pretty balanced viewpoint on the treez matter and was one of the few who even partially agreed with my analysis of that, if I remember correctly: or at least was considering and discussing the idea seriously.
But there must be some reasons for his change and eventual disinterest in contributing like he did before, and we can't know what those reasons are. -
why are some of these threads allowed to exist? I'm not in favour of heavy handed micro-moderation but, to take the case in recent point, to my mind the Thunderf00t thread has absolutely no relevancy or value to the topic of EE
It is relevant to Dave because he does technology videos, most of them tech debunk videos which is also a genre Dave is doing. To me that sounds like an obvious reason to keep Thunderf00t thread unlocked and try to prevent it from drifting off-topic. Even if the opening post is not exemplary in your opinion.
Threads that are completely off-topic from the beginning are easier to lock. -
why are some of these threads allowed to exist? I'm not in favour of heavy handed micro-moderation but, to take the case in recent point, to my mind the Thunderf00t thread has absolutely no relevancy or value to the topic of EE
It is relevant to Dave because he does technology videos, most of them tech debunk videos which is also a genre Dave is doing.
I'd be more reconciled with that, if I thought that the thread was at least an attempt at either a critical analysis and/or a valid technical challenge. As-is, it comes across to me as more of a public pillory and I don't leave it with any new knowledge or insight. Tbf, the thread itself really doesn't bother me. I'm simply observing that it appears to have poked a large stick into a larger hornet's nest, and doesn't (again, at least to me) have sufficient intrinsic value to be worth the blowback.
And for the record, that's not to say that I'm a supporter of Thunderf00t's channel has become. I used to be a regular viewer but became disenfranchised for the same reasons as many others. -
Do you believe that people should be prohibited from shouting "Fire!" in crowded theater if there actually is a fire?
No, but I read it so that both sides are equally legitimate, absolutely.
For moderation,
it's simple, you need few PID-controllers, one for moderation and one for every moderator.
Community being D-part for first and I-part for the rest. -
I suspect TiN, T3slacoil, and others have a similar feeling.
Possibly. Or you are just using their names in underlining your own opinions. As I said above, using their names to drive a point about a forum atmosphere ignores by far the most important aspect: the effects of their own personal lives (which we really should not and can not speculate about), and their own personal actions on the forum (or lack thereof).
It is more than just underlying my opinion. Skimming T3slacoil's later posts do seem to indicate the reasons he left, which are adjacent to the opinions I've expressed in this thread. TiN I'm less sure about. Bd139 I am very sure about, but don't want to put words into his mouth.
The presumption that their personal lives were a significant factor is just a speculation without evidence. Or is there evidence?
Without knowledge of their personal lives, it is reasonable to use what they have written.QuoteAlso: people come and go. It is completely normal to lose interest in something; it just stops being enjoyable. Sometimes it just is, without a fault of anyone. I have just stopped writing on some forums, like APUG (film photography forum) or diyelectriccar. It is well possible that some speculated over there about the reasons why I "left", when the only real reasons are that I lost interest, regardless of what others were saying or not saying.
Agreed.
But the statements made by those people don't support that.QuoteIt is also easy to utilize one's own growing disinterest by making a so-called "ragequit" - when you would be "quitting" anyway. I have done that myself and I don't like myself a lot for that.
That's one "sin" I've avoided, so far!QuoteBut there must be some reasons for his change and eventual disinterest in contributing like he did before, and we can't know what those reasons are.
What he wrote is a sufficient reason, and it is reasonable to rely on that. In the unlikely event that other evidence appears, be prepared to change that assessment. -
TiN I'm less sure about.
IIRC, TiN left because someone complained about his signature line supporting Ukraine. AFAIK he never brought the topic up in a forum discussion. I was not happy about that whole debacle but it's not my show and not my decision. -
I remember it the same. A real shame as TiN was a great contributor.
-
IIRC, TiN left because someone complained about his signature line supporting Ukraine. AFAIK he never brought the topic up in a forum discussion. I was not happy about that whole debacle but it's not my show and not my decision.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/question-to-gnif-and-dave/msg4370872/#msg4370872QuoteThanks for detailed explanation.
I would definitely appreciate the actual used rules and this hidden guideline about wars be clearly published , so me and others have no misunderstanding about what is accepted and what is censored on EEVblog. I don't expect freedom of speech or "democracy" on your forum, but I expect at least clear rules that apply to everyone the same way. What is ok and where the line is?
Otherwise it feels very selective, that StopRussianWar or #StopRussianInvasion (this was my text removed by gnif) is too political after being there for half a year, but other related to war content, or jokes related to "word cannot be said" from members like Shodan@micron are tolerated here just fine, since they don't use trigger word.
I'd wish the world to come to senses , but it's not happening any time soon. Whole incident could be resolved by communication before hand, but gnif took position to shoot first, ask questions later (not even ask, just postmortem "read rules" that not yet exist). I wonder that #SupportUkraine or even #PreserveISS violate this position too? I already guessed the answer.
If personal text is special cases only , then it should not be allowed to be set by user. While I am not living in Ukraine anymore, I still have relationships between both ukrainian and russians just fine and you could hopefully see why this feels upsetting to being muted half a year after without any question.
He always posted about electronic (never politics, 0 nada) with such a high level of details/results... Major loss for everybody.
Just for an effing signature.
After the above rules were updated to make sure nobody put something wrong in their signature.
Just for an effing signature, I am still piss off about it. -
...What I don't understand is, if the interpretation given above is correct and that's the MO for the site, then why are some of these threads allowed to exist? I'm not in favour of heavy handed micro-moderation but, to take the case in recent point, to my mind the Thunderf00t thread has absolutely no relevancy or value to the topic of EE, the EE industry or EE education....
Agree and I don't understand it as well outside of using the site to push your own agenda....
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/question-to-gnif-and-dave/msg4370872/#msg4370872
...
Just for an effing signature, I am still piss off about it.
Agree. There seems to be several technical contributors who have been banned for taking part with a hot topic and taking the wrong side. Rare anything happens to the person/s who start it. The comment about mods being weaponized seems accurate.
I agree with BD139's initial statement about the lower signal to noise levels here. I don't see how allowing, and in some cases contributing, to these non-technical discussions helps. To me, when owner/mods partake in a non-technical discussion it just adds to my confusion. Worse, if you take the wrong side you may be banned. Maybe that's a good thing.
For now, I'll just stay away from the political, sexual preference, religious, cooking ..... threads and appreciate having a somewhat technical forum available.
-
TBH he wouldn't have quit if he had been banned for personal attacks first <insert the thinking guy meme here>.
He's definitely appears to be a progressive lefty, but who cares? I couldn't give a toss if he's a full up member of the Democrat party, has his room plastered with BLM and rainbow flags and wants engineering to be have more PoC and LGBTQ+XYZ or however many letters there are now. That's no reason for him to be unwelcome here.In short, you approve of, and encourage, all of the above. It does not matter if that support is tacit: "well, people just need to be tolerant of those things; we must cherish that other people can be bold enough to say these things from time to time." No. Fuck you. Fuck directly out of here. There is no place in civilized society for that Twitter fanboy pseudo-libertarian bullshit. Laws exist for a reason. Learn some basic fucking civics. And more importantly, develop some compassion. Until then, out, go, now, you are not fit for civilized society.
This guy looks like a closeted SJW so I guess I can understand his disappointment with how things are turning out, not only on this forum. In fact, long ago I wasted plenty of time trying to convince people like him back then that they will end up like him today, to no avail. And I also quit one forum when it became overrun by SJWs and my tolerance ran out, so again I guess I can see where he is coming from.
He's not a moderator, so there's no chance he can damage the forum and he doesn't go round pushing it. Most of us who have strong political views occasionally leak them here. Heck, I'm guilty enough of that.
I still think it's shame he doesn't post here as much has he used to. We can all speculate, but his contribution is still missed by many.
-
If that were true, then why did you delete the post of mansaxel (fortunately preserved for posterity in nested quotes), apparently on the sole word of Siwastaja? You did not engage with mansaxel at all prior to deletion.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/forum-moderation/msg5804511/#msg5804511
I have a hard time understanding the motivation, if any, in that offered link. But you're the owner, and I have disturbed the alignment, so I shall be told off. All part of the game. Certainly not free speech and not to be expected either. I accept this. -
If that were true, then why did you delete the post of mansaxel (fortunately preserved for posterity in nested quotes), apparently on the sole word of Siwastaja? You did not engage with mansaxel at all prior to deletion.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/forum-moderation/msg5804511/#msg5804511
I have a hard time understanding the motivation, if any, in that offered link. But you're the owner, and I have disturbed the alignment, so I shall be told off. All part of the game. Certainly not free speech and not to be expected either. I accept this.
I'm trying to point out (again) that moderation can appear to not be even, that's just a nature of how it must work in practice.
In this case the deleted post in question was on the latest page, and people mostly just scroll the latest page, see somethign and then respond.
So it makes less sense to go back to previous pages and also delete similar messages in the past, because they just aren't seen as much, and hence don't provide the same level of "fuel" so to speak for people to continue to off-topic stuff.
It's a practical trade-off in moderation. -
If they took a hard stance to temp ban anyone commenting on politics, religion, race, sexual preference. I don't see that ever happening.
If we temp banned everyone for a single post that mentioned any of that stuff then the forum would be dead in a week. Temp banning pisses people off and they often leave as result. Be careful what you wish for.
I don't understand why many people can't at least understand how hard it is moderate a forum that has endelss different types of people from endless different cultures, with endless different interpretations of languages. It's a VERY FINE LINE. You can't just mechanically apply blanket rules an expect it work -
IIRC, TiN left because someone complained about his signature line supporting Ukraine. AFAIK he never brought the topic up in a forum discussion. I was not happy about that whole debacle but it's not my show and not my decision.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/question-to-gnif-and-dave/msg4370872/#msg4370872QuoteThanks for detailed explanation.
I would definitely appreciate the actual used rules and this hidden guideline about wars be clearly published , so me and others have no misunderstanding about what is accepted and what is censored on EEVblog. I don't expect freedom of speech or "democracy" on your forum, but I expect at least clear rules that apply to everyone the same way. What is ok and where the line is?
Otherwise it feels very selective, that StopRussianWar or #StopRussianInvasion (this was my text removed by gnif) is too political after being there for half a year, but other related to war content, or jokes related to "word cannot be said" from members like Shodan@micron are tolerated here just fine, since they don't use trigger word.
I'd wish the world to come to senses , but it's not happening any time soon. Whole incident could be resolved by communication before hand, but gnif took position to shoot first, ask questions later (not even ask, just postmortem "read rules" that not yet exist). I wonder that #SupportUkraine or even #PreserveISS violate this position too? I already guessed the answer.
If personal text is special cases only , then it should not be allowed to be set by user. While I am not living in Ukraine anymore, I still have relationships between both ukrainian and russians just fine and you could hopefully see why this feels upsetting to being muted half a year after without any question.
He always posted about electronic (never politics, 0 nada) with such a high level of details/results... Major loss for everybody.
Just for an effing signature.
After the above rules were updated to make sure nobody put something wrong in their signature.
Just for an effing signature, I am still piss off about it.
TiN left of his own accord, he was not banned or pressured to leave, we simply removed a hot button political message from his signature, something which he ultimately took offence to and left.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/question-to-gnif-and-dave/
It's simple, we can't have people putting hot button political issus in their signatures.
Not only for the obvious reasons, but because, unlike posts, the signature field instantly propagates throughout every message you have ever posted on the forum.
If you have thousands of posts then your political message instantly appears on those thousands of posts.
If we let one person do this then we haveto let everyone do this under the "moderation fairness" that everyone complains about, and what happens then? The forum will be covered with political messages that people know they can't put in posts.
We had to draw the line at that, and it was sorry that Tin decided to leave over it, but he made his own choice. He isn't banned and he's welcome back any time. -
Yes moderation is hard and I think this "meme" explains why:
