...or maybe to myself.

Introduction

Two things first:

1. "This is a Linux Forum" - yes, it is. But wherever people come together to discuss whatever, the sociological, emotional and psychological aspects, and aspects of communication and language, are just as important as the (technical) topics.
I have always been very interested in these aspects, and often found that the solution to a problem lies there, and not on the technical side.

2. Until recently, I liked to assume that the laws & regulations that rule our "real lives", also rule LQ (and other similar online communities).
I know there's a lot to be said against that assumption. I can hear all your "But"s already, but please read until the end, chances are I have already made that counterpoint myself.
Even if I ultimately agree that it's not a perfect analogy, even if it sounds over-dramatic at times, I will stick to it, because in the endless drafts I made for this post, it turned out to be the only way to get my point across.

---------------------------

A few years ago, I had this idea that I can stick to one online personality, spanning various communities, one that ultimately represents me as a person, even if I never reveal my real name or fine-grained location.
Because I would like to be online as a real person, not some reduced online personality. I would like to be myself, with the usual limitations that entails (just like in real life).
I believe in Integrity.

I am now beginning to understand that this is not possible, at least not on LQ.

Let me explain.

We have a set of rules. We have moderators.
Is this not an analogy to "laws" and "law enforcement"? Does this not ensure integrity?
No, not at all.
Upon closer inspection, the rules are just a short text consisting of a combination of non-commital feel-good messages on one hand, and pretty vague, flexible, and extremely broad Dos and Don'ts on the other hand.
Added to that, moderators have an almost absolute power to take punitive measures against a user without the need to justify themselves, and the user has no effective possiblity to defend themselves, is at the mercy of the powers that be.
It reminds me of the stereotypical sheriff from some Wild West movie ("I'm the law around here, and you look like trouble!"), strangely combined with the mentality of a pencil pusher.

One could say: "C'mon, it's not real life, nothing is really happening, and you're still posting, you haven't been banned, so it can't have been that bad?" - but then I think: OK, then why did I receive that warning in the first place? It is meant to intimidate, and intimate the possibilities of further, more drastic actions against me. It is a personal act of wielding that absolute power against me.
In real life, there are regulations to prevent law enforcement from becoming a law enforcer's personal act, but they are missing here.

And what can I do, if I feel that this is unjustified?
Can I appeal? I can, but it is up to that moderators' indulgence to even read it.
I have done this twice now, and it leads to exactly nothing (reporting a moderator does not lead to another moderator joining the discussion), except that the moderator is getting vaguely annoyed with me, and probably puts a mental peg in it: Watch this user. Maybe more severe action is appropriate to make them understand The Rules.
Or one could argue: "Moderators do such an important job, and they're so busy, you really can't expect them to respond to your every whim." - as in fact some of them do when pressed for justification.
I say: "Then why did you start the whole thing at all?" - apparently the answer would be: "Because I am trying to make LQ a better place, and you aren't" - can you see what slippery slope we're on now? Who is a good person, and who isn't?
Lawfulness & Integrity do not work this way.
Innocent until proven guilty, there's a good reason why that is the rule in every civilised place on this planet. (*)

All in all, this leads to a situation where almost anything one posts can be construed to be against the rules - if one isn't extremely careful, that is.
Take the "off-topic" rule for example. Almost anything beyond the strictest technical discussion can be put under that.

Are those extremely broad rules applied justly?
Of course not.
It depends very much on the situation, on the participants' "standing" in the community, on their other contributions, and on vague feelings that the moderator has about the poster in question, how each contribution is interpreted.
For each and every warning (and one infraction) I have received I can point to various examples where another poster did the same thing.
Unfortunately we cannot see what sort of warnings others have received. But the moderators can. It just adds to their absurd power. I'd prefer things to be more open. Yes, including my own red & yellow dots to be visible to others.

Since there's no objective set of rules, or at least no objective way of enforcing them, people have to be cautious. They adapt to the situation at hand. Over the years they learn to formulate their posts in such a way that they offer the smallest possible attack surface; but at the same time they learn to use "legal" outlets for their "forbidden" needs (to make off-topic remarks, to criticize in a way that might be construed to be a personal attack), and take every opportunity to point the finger if someone else has broken the rules.

Just look at the "lawful" bashing of Kali Linux users (and also their often extreme defenses). Finally an outlet!

To my shame I must admit that I also did this, in various ways.

All this wouldn't be a problem...

Of course I know that these things (rules) are almost the same on almost all forums, Linux or not.
But usually this is much less of a problem - not because moderators are better people there, but because there's just less of them, or they do less, maybe because there's a general agreement that less (action) is more.

If law enforcement has nothing better to do than dissect people's behaviour then there either isn't enough real crime to go around, or too many police.

I am not saying that I am a model citizen

Yes, I am grumpy. Snarky. Unfriendly. Sarcastic. But hopefully sometimes also witty (the audience decides).
I have always lived on the edge, on the fringe, exploring boundaries.
And even in my fifth decade I haven't learned not to speak my mind when it might be inadvisable.

In other words, I draw attention. A square peg in a round hole.

It's perfectly OK to criticize me for it, straight to my face, even just tell me to shut up.
It's OK to tell me: "Then why do you behave this way, if it's causing you so much grief?" - I do that myself quite often.

But does that justify the police coming up to me to tell me to stop this, or else?
Of course not.
There's a huge difference between being arrogant, unfriendly etc. on one hand and an insult or personal attack on the other.
There's an even bigger difference between perceiving someone's behavior as insulting, and being able to prove this to the world, incl. a chance for the accused to defend themselves.
If this were real life I'd already started looking where I can get a lawyer. Seriously.

Conclusion?

Five years on LQ, and a lot of time spent here.
A pretty strong part of my online personality.
Getting a PM from a moderator (usually another warning) felt strangely personal. Threatening to my online personality. Like trouble at work. I know it's silly, but you can't tell your emotions that they're being silly, they still come.
I need to do something about this. Not exactly sure what, other than bring it up.

This is not a grand & dramatical exit.
This is not a call for a revolution against moderators.

But from now on I will relate differently.
I just cannot take this seriously anymore, and now feel a little ridiculous that I ever did.
I'm not sure what my decision will entail; maybe I won't be using the ondoho persona anymore.
Maybe I deliberately need to ween myself off the negative emotions I get from moderator warnings.
I definitely need to stop discussing things with them.
I definitely cannot believe in the idea of integrity and being a real person here on LQ anymore.
I hope that this, paradoxically, will help me to become more honest.

I refuse to weigh my every word for its potential to offend a moderator.

This is not a place where the real-life me wants to expose itself.
Sock puppets for the world, thanks to LQ over-moderation!

PS: I was told to take it to jeremy. I prefer to take it to the people, openly. This is a judgement I have far more trust in.

---------------------

(*) My last 3 warnings were about posts where the moderator thought that I was being insulting. There was no objective proof of that, and they were indeed off with their judgement. 2 of those warnings were from rtmistler. After the first one they were still willing to discuss matters with me. The more recent one, not so much anymore. rtmistler says they find my replies "worrying". Some veiled threat.
Here are some examples:
Signature rule violation - "harsh joke" - by rtmistler
Inappropriate language, insult - by Mara
Insulted Other Member(s) - by rtmistler
I am not saying that I was on my best behavior in these posts, I can see that. But, once more, there's a difference between criticizing me (preferably openly), or declaring this as a violation of the law.
And, this is not a personal vendetta of mine, but since moderators hold a sort of public office, I believe it appropriate to mention them by name.

It is purely accidental, that I respond here and not later in the thread.

Of course, it is not. My interference is determined by some identical constraints, like time zones, cultural background - native and acquired, and so much, that I cannot say, for lack of eloquence.

Citing from ondoho's post then
... everything, it seems, I could not say it better. Let me add at least something.
In real life, the regulations serve the same people that transgress them. And I felt something, when I did (at first) apply myself for the post of a moderator on LQ. What you describe corresponds to my fears for LQ and my observations in Real Life.

Preventing law enforcement from becoming law enforcer's personal act is a continued exercise which asks for permanent attention, permanent commitment and the free space to exercise some kind of influence on the interested public. It is an engagement in itself and I am not sure that the team has taken provisions in this respect.

How do moderators converse their own actions, to whom and to what purpose?

1 members found this post helpful.

I agree with some of what you say, and some ( by no means the majority ) of the mods here have much inflated opinion of themselves, and on occasion I have told a mod to grow a sense of humor, I tend to avoid threads where mods that I know tend to throw their weight about are active.

As it's an open letter.....

Different people have different attitudes, some of your posts, at first glance, do look a little less than friendly.

I haven't had any trouble with any mods on here, & I've been here a few years too.

Some times I may add a bit of frivolity to a post in good humour, but I will always use the emoticons, to show my intent, & I don't think that I have ever upset anyone.

If, someone does takes exception, (to a comment that I post on any forum that I belong to), I'm always ready to apologise.

In all my online years, & forums, it's only happened a couple of times, & been a cultural misunderstanding, which I was happy to apologise for & explain my intent.

Maybe just consider what you write, rather than what you thought you wrote.

4 members found this post helpful.

I shall be sorry to see you go. You've been a fixture here longer than I have. But I think you're wrong when you imagine that we're all tiptoeing around, trying not to offend the moderators. I can only speak for myself, but I always say what I think, both here and in real life. I'm too old to learn be tactful now. Nevertheless I've never had my fingers rapped on LQ (so far!).

The trouble with cyberspace is that there is no legal framework. In real life, the police are constrained by laws just like everyone else. There are parliaments to pass those laws and courts to enforce them. Online, none of that exists. The parallel with the Wild West is accurate; in freshly settled territory, a generally approved legal framework doesn't exist yet. So the sheriff has to be "the law" or there's no law at all.

I don't know of any mechanism for policing moderators. But I do know what happens when you don't have moderators. I avoid Facebook, Twitter and Instagram like poison because they are full of lynch mobs. You only have to say something politically incorrect and you'll be threatened with rape and worse by people you have never met. Here at least we have a civilised atmosphere for discussion.

5 members found this post helpful.

Communication is hard. We all have to work against being misunderstood, and not misunderstanding others. I don't think you should especially concern yourself with offending moderators in particular, but you should weigh your words carefully to see that you are actually saying what you meant to say. Conversely, if you read something that "offends" you, don't reply immediately, let it sit for a while and consider if there is some other possible way to understand what has been written.

Unlike, for example, that time you acted as self-appointed moderator after misreading a post.

Do you mean you were (accused of/charged with) violating a rule in your signature? In that case there is no use in linking to it since we can't see your old signature.

Speaking of your signature, the "You can PM me through my blog" link leads to a 404 page.

1 members found this post helpful.

I realize that you only provided the "last three" examples of moderator "reprimands," and, presumably there are more (else why would you even start this thread), but I make that 0.032% of your considerable (and, IMO nearly always helpful) contributions that have received admonishments from mods...and I couldn't even find that in your last example.

As you've already pointed out, some of your posts might have been better phrased. And yes, there are certainly several other members here who are as, or more, "guilty" of these kinds of "rules violations" than you have ever been that don't appear to have been admonished for their responses, at least not publicly.

I've been here slightly longer than you have, but have only recently begun to contribute. I only managed "Senior Member" status a couple of months ago. For a short while, I added several links to my .sig that I stole from you and a couple other high volume contributors. Short, because I realized that the guidance you and others were providing was probably sufficient. I didn't really need to add another list of "See here for how to help yourself" links. Again, I think those are valuable, and I encourage you to continue to supply them...

And I get the frustration of asking an OP to provide more information and not getting it. It's very irritating. Choosing not to respond at all is often the best path. Maybe that's a result of age. (I'd steal hazel's sig if I were a lady. I'm certainly old.)

You said you aren't planning to leave. That's good. I'd encourage you to continue to participate as you have, and take any criticism from mods as constructive (even when it doesn't feel that way...remember that mods are people too )

You appear to know after the fact when you've trod on the line (I don't think you've ever stepped over it). You can manage that. [or not, your choice of course, I'd think you have to be a LOT more caustic to be banned...a LOT]

Edit: my bad. I thought this was general. Post retracted.

While I can't say I agree with the idea that "other embers are getting away with breaking rules"; I'm actually glad you posted this thread, as I was wondering if I was only one getting warnings/Infractions/etc. Clearly it turns out the answer to that is no. So it's not as if your the only one getting such.

But I do agree that the "official rules" can be pretty board, and that depending on the mod, the post might be interpreted differently. But I don't think that's just limited to mods though, it seems it depends on the member regardless if they are a mod or not. And I've found at least some of those "interpretations" to be pretty strange, including both normal members and some mods.

AFAIK, the same official rules apply to all parts of LQ, including posting signatures. Correct me if I'm wrong.

For one thing, it's a two way street. If the OP isn't listening to what their being told and ignore advice, then still expect a complete stranger that owes them nothing to pull out all the stops to still help them; then that's not something people responding to should be blamed for. And if the advice being given is still valid, then I think it's a bit rich to call that "bashing". Also (and as I've seen stated from yourself elsewhere on LQ), some OP's seem to post to get a hostile reaction.

Personally, I've ignored a number of the recent Kali related posts, mainly for the reason said above.

I can't say I agree with the above as stated. While I'm sure Jeremy only appoints as many mod's as he and his admin team can manage, I can't say that having more mod's is necessarily going to change what you're describing.

I don't think this is about your technical knowledge. I'd suggest you try not to tell the world every thought (or close to it) that pops into your head. More precisely what you think about other posters here and/or how much (or otherwise) OP's/other members might know about IT related matters.

What else are mod's for?

Yes, and it goes back to people's interpretations of posts.

I will also say that I remember saying to yourself in another post that if you ever wanted to PM me, and ask about anything I've posted, that you can do that if you would like...

My impression is that the mods tend to let things slide until they see individual users exhibiting a pattern of problematic behavior. Then they try to change that pattern.

Not saying that's what's going on in your case, but if you got 3 warnings in a row then you should probably change your style.

1 members found this post helpful.

i'm as baffled as you, but when i asked what this means and how it relates to the post, i was told that "these are the pre-composed choices provided by jeremy, and if i don't like them i should take it up with him".


no idea what happened there, i changed it a little and it should be working now.
thanks for pointing it out; since i have now disabled PMs it is tghe only way for a fellow member to contact me.

um, thanks a lot for that.
sometimes it takes such a clear statement to put things into perspective.

(removed some stuff)

The most important thing on LQ is to provide practical advice and support to those using Linux while making these forums an enjoyable place for people to visit. That's it, full stop.

I like you, ondoho, but I can't understand why you're making this out to be all about you and your personality and your right to do whatever you wish. I once had someone blow cigarette smoke in my face at a party and, when I complained, declare to me: "I can do this because I am a free man!". My feeling is that if folk want to live in any sort of society then there are going to have to be compromises, and also respect given to the feelings and desires of other members of that society, for it to work. Otherwise, if you want to be the bare unreconstructed you with no restrictions, then you need to go and live on a desert island - there you can do whatever the hell you want.

Don't take any of what I just said as pertaining to you directly (for "you", read "one"), but I have to react when I see you saying things like "either you can take me as i am, or you don't". You're obviously doing something that displeases some other members of this community (the mods usually act on reports received). If you can't play by the rules then don't play. It will be a shame to see you go - on a personal level, we've had some good interaction in the past, and on an LQ-level you obviously know your stuff - but that's your choice.

This isn't the filming location for Braveheart 2 ("Freedom!!!!"). It's a forum to *help* people - that's what we're here for and that's what we should do. Our personalities and personal wishes and desires are secondary, and that's how it should be, imo.

5 members found this post helpful.

Where to begin....after being involved with many forums, including one I run/manage (including the old BBS's), I disagree with your assertion/review of LQ. It is one of the most professional, friendly and helpful fora out there. This is not brown nosing or offering the teacher an apple, its a quantifiable fact.

There is a tendency with online personas for people to wear their emotions on their sleeves, and to react prematurely and sometimes immaturely, where in "real life" most people would pause/reflect/choose to ignore/walk away etc... I am not saying that you do this, but repeated warnings is usually an indicator that something is amiss. Can we really blame the moderators, especially when its coming from different mod's?

I disagree with publicly calling out a mod as you did with RT, that should have been addressed privately with him/her and Jeremy. Regarding the idea of having people's warnings publicly listed, I think that's a terrible idea: 1) it encourages public shaming, 2) it encourages online bullying whereby people could be encouraged to keep elevating a persons warnings, so called yellow and red dots. LQ encourages showing how helpful people are, not how many times the teacher/principle had to paddle their hands or fanny, or write "I will not..." on the chalk board after school. [/memories]

Someone responded with saying sometimes things are taken out of context or "lost in translation" and I also have been warned for something similar ("What's the sound of one hand clapping", which is an old zen proverb, somehow was taken to be a personal attack), but sometimes the best advice is "water off a ducks back", disagree, don't be bothered by it, and operate within the norms/rules/laws of the culture. When in Rome and all....

ondoho, you provide alot of assistance here, we have agreed, and disagreed many times, and I still respect your posts, even the grumpy/snarky/pithy/pissy ones. Lighten up, don't take this stuff so seriously and finally another old Taoist/Zen quote:

"All that's left to do in this moment is laugh"

5 members found this post helpful.

I have been reprimanded once: ONCE!
(This is not to imply that I only DESERVED it once, I will leave that judgement to others.)
At the time I did not think it was justified. I went back and re-read everything posted on that thread and realized that what I posted could easily be taken wrong, and that I should be careful to make myself clear. I have since apologized once or twice when, on consideration, I thought my words might give the wrong impression or insult someone.

Now to be very clear, I have NO problem insulting someone when they richly deserve to be insulted! This, however, or another man's living room and his creation and I admire his work and intent. I WILL not, as his guest here, intentionally violate his standards. That is a value I was raised to consider as matter of honor and integrity. I might feel differently were this a commercial project, and in particular had I PAID to engage a service here!

I put it out for consideration that if you feel this (very liberal and open) forum mistreats you or that the rules are not to your liking that the problem is not really with the forum. There may also be nothing at all wrong with you or your feeling that way. The problem is one of viewpoint: you are LOOKING at things wrong. You may or may not agree, but I suggest you take the time to consider the viewpoint of your host and the other guests. This not only when considering your current decision, but whenever you decide to post on another man's site.

I have found it illuminating, you may as well.

3 members found this post helpful.

Not that I've noticed,

I recently was/am in the same position. My online persona as Habitual has been "colorful".
I have tried hard to tone things down.
I've always been the loudest. Got the voice that carries. Got called out a lot in prison just for "not being scared to be there"
I attack people (or used to) for simply not reading.

The guests here at LQ (and that is all they are, guests) don't know the rules or how to behave.
Can barely type, they are so nervous.
Half the time they're peeing themselves. I bet they feel intimidated, or worried.

Why do I hang here? Well, my friends...I have no peers in my professional circle.
No one to bounce shit off of when I get in a pinch.
I'm gonna need to ask someone's opinion or advice and I best not be an asshole on that day.
And it's not a hard 'bit' to do.
For me, if It feels Personal. I know I need a break.

Thank You,
John Jones

1 members found this post helpful.