Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org

Journal sllort's Journal: Moderators have lost Moderation Priveleges en masse 106

Journal by sllort

Update (5/28/03): The information in this journal is outdated and no longer reflects the state of Slashcode; this journal remains as a historical record but is no longer accurate.
--
Quite a few of you are aware of the existence of this post which has currently been moderated over 700 times. Many of you are also aware of this discussion created by CmdrTaco for users to have a META discussion about topics on Slashdot.

Few, however, are aware of what is happening to the people who moderated up the post in question. They are being systematically banned from Moderating and Metamoderating. Every last one of them. The phrase "being $rtbl'd" refers to the tripping of a silent flag called "$rtbl" in a user's Slashdot account record which removes that user's ability to Moderate and Metamoderate.

Finding out whether you've been $rtbl'd is possible. Here's how. If you are allowed to Metamoderate, you will be given the option to Metamoderate at the top of your browser every day. After you Metamod, the dialog will go away till the next day. If you are $rtbl'd, the dialog will go away and never come back. It's that simple.

I've opened this journal up for comments. I'd like to hear from anyone who moderated up The Post, on whether or not you've lost moderation priveleges. So far every single respondent has indicated that their moderation priveleges are gone. No response has been received from anyone @slashdot.org about this either.

I'd also like to hear from the Slashdot audience: do you believe that this action is fair or unfair?

Discuss.

Update: 1/28/2002. At this point, the fact that every moderator who moderated up the post in question has been banned from the moderation system is no longer in doubt. Every single person who has replied in this discussion has confirmed their loss of moderation privleges. Repeated requests to the editors in the Slashdot META thread for confirmation of this fact as well as repeated requests via email for confirmation have all gone ignored. The message appears to be that moderators will be banned for moderating posts like these up, and the Editors don't want to talk about it. This is their right - and I'm content to continue to discuss it in my journal. On topic.
Update: 1/30/2002 I'd like to invite anyone interested in the topic of Moderator banning to read my research paper on the subject, which addresses such questions as the percentage of banned moderators on Slashdot (appx. 5 to 18%), as well as the motivations and impacts of removing users from the voting pool. In the absence of any word from folks @slashdot.org, this paper stands as the definitive work on Slashdot Moderator bans. Remember, Metamoderation confirms that Editors moderate fairly, but only people who haven't been blacklisted get a vote...

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moderators to lose Moderation Priveleges en masse More

Moderators to lose Moderation Priveleges en masse

Comments Filter:
  • I have been thinking about this incident recently and I have decided that I have really had a misconception of the nature of /.

    This whole time the image of /. in my mind has been that of a democracy. I knew that the story submission wasn't at all, but I always thought that basically the site was about what the people that were using it wanted.

    I have come to the conclusion that we are actually on a pretty short leash here. And you know what, there is nothing wrong with that. The site is Taco's and he can do WHATEVER HE WANTS! It isn't like we are prisoners here! He isn't taking away our freedom.

    So why am I still bothered?

    Perhaps because this never occured to me. I have been living in a cave looking at shadows and I am sad that I now see the real world. I had thought that Taco & Co. had set up "laws" here and that the system functioned according to them. What do I mean by laws? I mean that the Slash code enforces the mechanisms needed for this site to run in a reasonable manner. I thought that this happened without a lot of intervention on the part of the editors. I didn't think that they would go in and change something about someone's account because of one moderation. I can understand tweaks here and there to keep the system running and having to update the system to counter new attacks. But what we have seen is that when the system doesn't work the way the editors want, massive intervention outside of the code (or rules) can occur. And that is FINE. It isn't my site, I don't make the rules, I merely contribute when I feel I have something of some value to say.

    Where am I going with all this? I don't know. Maybe I will find that this isn't the place for me. If only people living under opressive regimes had the same option.

    • So why am I still bothered?

      Perhaps because this never occured to me.

      It's stunning, isn't it. The first time you realize that the backend has been silently tweaked to remove you from the pool. I had the same realization that you are now having about a year ago, when I was totally banned from reading Slashdot from behind my company's firewall. I'm not the only programmer here; there were a lot of people here convinced that "Slashdot went down". I was the only one who knew that something I'd done had caused them to ban me from reading.

      I didn't make as rational a choice as you are making. I chose to learn how to use HTTP proxies to get around the ban, and come back here and post comments about being banned. Needless to say, they didn't like that very much. To this day, no one at SlashTeam will talk about banning me. And that, as you say, is their choice.

      What bothers me, really, is that when it happened to me it was a total surprise. And apparently it was a surprise to you as well. It's a surprise to nearly everyone it happens to because what rules are posted here are completely contradictory to how the site is actually run. Not the kind of thing you'd expect from Slashdot... right?

      I've made a list here [slashdot.org] of things that could be added to the FAQ that would clear things up for people. Maybe I should append this:

      If you choose to moderate badly*, you will permanently lose moderation priveleges from your account and subnet.

      *bad moderation is determined by CmdrTaco

      What do you think?

      • I am not yet sure that this is exactly what happened. I have emailed Taco and I hope to hear from him but I will understand if I don't.

        Maybe the sentence you need to add is:

        This system is run by CmdrTaco and he reserves the right to make any changes that are needed to keep the site running in a way that seems appropriate to him.

        In any case I have realized that something else that bothers me about this situation is that Taco keeps saying that everyone is taking this too seriously and that it was only one post and a stupid one at that. Well if isn't a big deal then why does it merit retribution? Can reasonable people disagree about how a comment should be moderated? How often can you be "wrong" without getting hit with the $rtbl (or whatever it is) stick?

        Also, I agree that if you get banned, maybe you deserve an explaination. I would certainly like one. But again, it is Taco's site and he can do whatever he pleases with it. He has certainly been doing it for long enough, and by now he probably knows what he is doing. And it seems that he has spent a lot of time explaining things to people (mainly you). I certainly don't think he is evil or anything.

        • He has certainly been doing it for long enough, and by now he probably knows what he is doing.

          Heh, well I can't argue with you there.

          And it seems that he has spent a lot of time explaining things to people (mainly you).

          It would seem that way if you looked at the last 2 years through the lens of the last 2 days. Don't be fooled.

          I certainly don't think he is evil or anything.

          Neither do I. But I know what the road to Hell is paved with, too.

          • I am considering the last few days. I have always thought that there should be discussions about /. itself on the front page on a regular basis. Maybe once every two months. I thought it was strange that the current meta-discussion hit the frontpage over at k5 but not here. Maybe they want to hide it from the 250,000 readers that come each day and don't delve too deeply. That is the group that the editors really seem to want to cater to. I had always thought that posters and moderators would be the top priority since they are creating the content here. However it is the 250,000 readers each day that really bring in the $$ if any are coming in. Causing 10% of that 250,000 to question whether Rob & Co. have a firm grip on things is more damaging potentially than ticking off 50% of those that contribute since there are so few of us.
            • That's a realization I've been having lately as well. 250,000 read; 3,000 post. Moderators are picked from the pool of readers. Therefore you could ban every single poster from moderating comments and only lose 1.2% of your moderating pool. Explains a lot, doesn't it? I think you're right; I think the "whining, bitching, vocal minority" may be everyone who posts to Slashdot. Interesting, no?

              The timing on this happening is particularly bad considering that they're currently working on a subscription model for Slashdot. I wonder if I can buy back my mod priveleges? At this point, I'm not sure that I would.

              Would you?

              • Subsriptions seem to run counter to the existing grain here at /. Maybe I am wrong about that. I don't see anyone clamoring for a premium /. service. I guess they aren't making as much money as they need/want to.

                What advantage would a subsrciption offer to the casual reader? The frequent poster? The troll or crapflooder? The last two seem to be the most interesting case. How would you like to pay money for access to a system that doesn't want you. What does this obligate the system to do for you?

                I doubt that anyone can buy back their moderating priviledges. The fact that I have lost mine makes me a little sad, but it certainly isn't incentive to pay $$ to get them back.

                Finally, if they move to a subscription model and I post lots of stuff that gets modded up to +5, do I get paid by them since I am contributing worthwhile content to the site?

                • Well, I suppose subscriptions are inevitable, and probably not a bad thing, if they mean that slashdot keeps running. [yahoo.com] (Since, after all, deep down we all freaking love it [slashdot.org]. Or something.)

                  I would subscribe immediately for some features. Primarily these are:

                  Auto-caching. It's well past time to include an auto-cache in the story, to prevent server knockouts. This takes server capacity, so subscribers oughta pay for it.

                  No ads. Duh.

                  Custom journals, with ability to create own discussions like this, but also customize appearance, editor-mod them, and generally be like Vlad on Geekizoid but without the servers that keep going down.

                  And stuff. I send money, I expect at least a t-shirt or something - they sure seem to have a lot of them [thinkgeek.com] to get rid of.

                  What MUST NOT happen with subscriptions:

                  Loss of AC privileges for unlogged-in users. Without a "true" AC it's not slashdot anymore.

                  Loss of ability to create new accounts, and switch between them easily. I think this is self-explanatory. I'm willing to have one or more "good" accounts, with no ads etc., and one or more "crap" accounts that do have ads etc. - but forcing me to tie all my accounts to my credit card number and billing address would be really, really bad.

                  Further loss of anonymity. Already slash has the stupid MD5 thing with IPs; what if it were modified in a way that more generally tied AC and other posts to userinfo? All sorts of yahoo message board style harassment would ensue. They need to be really careful about this one.

                  Of course, I'd pay good money for the ability to modbomb. But I'm not holding my breath on that one...

                  • I am not sure that they could get away with it. Do you think that the New York Times is going to let /. cache its content? Do you think that editors are going to want to spend the time to get permission to cache stories? Would other sites feel forced to comply, with the threat of /.ing hanging over them?

                    As far as no ads go the ads that /. does have are so innocuous when compared to other sites (Yahoo, Aint it Cool, Cnet, etc) that I honestly don't care if they stay or go. Occasionally I even click on them. If they introduce pop-ups and big middle of the page ads for non-subscribers then we can start talking about no ads being an advantage.

                    The ideas that you have for journals are nice, but isn't editor modding what started this whole discussion? Now you want to do it too? I guess that having power over others really is tempting.

                    If you want stuff, then isn't it easier to simply buy stuff from them? Or make your own t-shirt. Do you think that they will offer stuff "for free" if you subscribe? Isn't the point of the subscription that you are paying money to get better service? Doesn't spending some of that money for t-shirts give them less money to spend on making a quality product? Also, doesn't it link your id to a real-life snail mail address? Do you want CmdrTaco to know where you live? I know I don't....

                    Ok, actually I don't care if he knows where YOU live, I just don't want him showing up at MY HOUSE.

                    • Sulli recommended that moderating your own journal be free of impact on the victim's karma. i would extend this to the IP-banning code. i think that this would be acceptable, since if you post something in someone's journal that they don't like, and you're moderated down, nothing comes of it. if you like, you can start your own journal, insult the person who moderated you down, etc. etc. it's the consequences - karma loss, subnet banning - that make karma important to people.

                      anyway, as long as the rules are visibly posted, who cares? the editor moderation stink came from the hypocrisy and misleading documentation, not the existence of editor moderation.

                    • /. has an editorial staff. They do precisely shit. What they should do is email the webmaster of a site and say "we're getting ready to run a story on your site. We'd like to mirror it, replacing your ads with ours. If we don't hear from you in xx minutes/hours, we will just post the story without mirroring."

                      Then, a simple wget solves the rest if they get an okay, and a notice at the bottom of the story saying "site refused or did not acknowledge request for temporary mirror" if appropriate.

                      As far as Rob knowing where I live? He's a little bitch. Let him knock on my door. But I'm not like that. Despite his problems, he has done some interesting work, and I'd just as likely invite him in for a home brew.

                      (err, he is old enough to drink, isn't he?)
                    • the editor moderation stink came from the hypocrisy and misleading documentation

                      Exactly. A site that cries censorship, corruption, hypocrisy, bad security, bad customer service, and generally "you suck" at the whole non-Linux world ought to at least try to be straight with its readers. (The meta discussion helped a bit, but it will really depend on what the 500,000 see, not just those of us reading trolltalk or clicking on sigs.)

                      Now post some trolls dammit!

                    • taco did link the META discussion from his journal, but not from the homepage. i'm guessing a very small fraction saw it; probably even a small fraction of people who read the post of doom. it was very quickly buried.

                    • How about a compromise: unlimited UP-modding on posts in your journal? At the very least, unlimited 'interesting' and 'insightful' (IMO, only the poster knows the answers to this in a journal).
    • The site is Taco's

      That's a misunderstanding. The site ceased to be Taco's in 1999 when he sold it to Andover.net. It currently belongs to the shareholders of VA Software, and it amazes me how many people swallow whole the line that it's "really Taco's site".

      • I am aware that the site belongs to our buddies at VA Software. Maybe they are manipulating things behind the scenes. I haven't noticed any evidence of that. Of course THEY would want it that way...

        In any case Taco seems to still run things as he sees fit.

        Note that it is entirely possible that I am simply clueless.

      • You have to wonder if he's really increasing shareholder value. The current theory seems to be that the popularity of Slashdot is due to the magic formula of Hemos & Taco, the mystical phenomenon that no one understands. Part of the Slashdot value proposition is it's character: it's a site, misspelled, with bad grammar, about the stuff these two guys like.

        I can't argue with them. I honestly don't know what would happen if someone at VA fired Taco for "bad customer service" and replaced him with, say, Rusty. But I'm not exactly sure that it would increase revenue or readership.

        Slashdot is one of the last things VA has left to hold onto, and I feel reasonably certain that Slashdot will be Rob's baby as long as it can turn a profit.

        It's that last gotcha that may explain his apparent stressed-out demeanor.

        Or maybe he's always surly? I haven't been around long enough to know.

        • I still can't figure out what the fuck he does all day. Accept/reject submissions with a banal comment? (Hell, he has a staff to help him with that.) Fix code? Well, if it had been opened about 12 months earlier, maybe they would be further ahead. Also, he's not pulling that load alone. AND, from what I've heard, his coding of the original /. could be a contender in the obfuscated perl contest.

          All day modding? Now we are getting somewhere. Where's my paycheck?

          Sorry, but it sounds like his life is pretty fucking easy, and I'd like for him not to bitch about it. I run a business that saves people's lives. 45 people don't eat if we go under. My wife has a potentially fatal illness. Taco, I'll trade my stress for yours any day of the fucking week.
        • Part of it is that we don't have all these uppity moderators trying to change the way they like things to run.

          Anymore.

          Face it: every up-mod on That Post was taken as a personal affront. They saw it as a slap in the face to those that had created SlashHaven for allllll us little peons. That's what pisses me off: this is supposed to be business now, not personal. But /. still being run like Blex ran his Page Of Good MP3.

    • He isn't taking away our freedom. So why am I still bothered?

      Maybe you're bothered because you wanted to visit a news-discussion site, and not a giant ad for Linux. HELLO, VA owns /. now. There's a bit of bias. This is why you never see any articles in Time trashing AOL, or anything on slate.msn talking about how shitty Windows is. I ask you this - if Slashdot stopped raving about each and every tiny new development in Linux, do you think it would lose some of it's interested followers? A goodly number of kernel hackers and even kernel users are in the whole Linux thing for the respect of their peers. Note to kernel-kids: your peers are a bunch of geeks. You are too. The true respect that you'll get will be from insightful and innovative contributions to the project; name-dropping, pointless raving and other assorted Slashdot activities only make you cool in your head.

  • I posted in the thread. Twice. Now all of a sudden my metamod privileges are gone. Do they go away because you've had some downmods recently(I lost 6 karma points over The Post, bringing me down to 44 karma).


    I'm kind of ticked about this. I have posted over 600 times and have never trolled(although I've been marked as a troll a few times). But why did I suddenly lose the privilege to metamod? Maybe everyone who posted in this discussion is now unable to metamod!(think about it, it would be a great way for Taco to not allow those who replied The Post the chance to counter what we might think is an unfair moderation). Hmm. (adjusts tin hat).

    • No, if you've lost Metamod for more than a day, you're permanently banned from the moderation system. So there's a possibility that even people who posted to that thread are banned.

      I'll update my journal; thanks for the update!

      • I modded up The Post ("interesting") and seem to have permanently lost mod/m2 privs. As has been said over and over, I have no basis for complaint; it's Taco/VA's site, and they can assign privileges based on the number of vowels in user's names if they want to.

        That being said, I must say that my personal view of /. has changed fundamentally. If I can lose my privilege to participate in shaping the discussion here because I express an opinion that the admins don't like, then I'm suddenly not as interested in what goes on here. And given that this site is driven by the enthusiastic participation of frequent posters and moderators like me, one has to wonder what the long-term consequences of this will be.

        • And given that this site is driven by the enthusiastic participation of frequent posters and moderators like me, one has to wonder what the long-term consequences of this will be.

          Note that Taco has stated that while 250,000 people read this site, only 3,000 regularly post to it. Those 250k are how he makes his money; the 3,000 that post comments are there to post comments that will increase the number of readers. If you post a comment or moderate in a way that he feels will not increase stockholder value, you're out. Like you, I don't have a problem with this either. Think of the posters as "the show" - Taco's job is to produce the show. Bad actors get the boot.

          My problem with the whole thing is this: why doesn't he tell anyone this? The whole "User Moderated" charade is getting old. Can't we get an update that admits that Slashdot is "Taco Moderated"? If he just broke down and admitted that he felt his job was dependent upon people agreeing with him in their comments, maybe people would be more likely to help him out. They'd certainly be less shocked when they were banned.

          Here's an idea: put a link to this journal entry in your sig. Here's the URL: http://slashdot.org/~sllort/journal/4236/ [slashdot.org]. There are only 3000 people who post to Slashdot, and personally I feel that all the actors in the show should know what the rules are.

          • Here's an idea: put a link to this journal entry in your sig. Here's the URL: http://slashdot.org/~sllort/journal/4236/ [slashdot.org]. There are only 3000 people who post to Slashdot, and personally I feel that all the actors in the show should know what the rules are.
            Good idea; just changed my sig. By the way, I didn't know that changing my sig would change the sig on all messages I've ever posted, but it appears to have done so. Interesting that it's done dynamically.
            • . Interesting that it's done dynamically.

              You know why they do it that way? Because there's a user preference to turn off .sig's. So they have to be rendered dynamically, and they don't want to have to have a database entry for what-your-sig-was-back-then.

              Interestingly, the default for people not logged in is sigs off. So of the 250,000 people who read Slashdot, maybe 5,000 can see your sig. This is why I'm considering turning off my .sig and just pasting it to the end of each comment I post.

    • Well, I metamodded today so I can't test this yet. I did post in the thread though.

      On another note, there was a day last week where every post in my metamod was from that infamous thread, including the initial one. Most "Unfair" ratings I'd ever given.
  • I too have lost my M2 line (not that I did it that often) just because I moderated up the PoD.
  • if you choose "not to moderate" from your user settings, you won't metamod, either (I guess the thinking is that if you don't moderate, you shouldn't judge those who do... makes sense).

    Anywho, don't freak if you can't metamod if you unchecked 'willing to moderate'.

    BTW - I posted to that article, but still have metamod... I just checked.
  • I haven't moderated or even metamoderated at all in the last few months. I did briefly uncheck "Willing to Moderate". So either there is something other than moderation that can trip $rtbl or perhaps I have to wait again until the Slashdot population grows 10 percent, like a new user would.

  • As a BBS user in the past. . . . (Score:3, Informative)

    by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Saturday January 26, 2002 @10:06PM (#2908102) Homepage Journal
    I used to go on BBSs before I got onto the internet, and as such I am perfectly aware of how the Real World works. (yes computers are in the real world, they exist, therefore. . . .)

    It used to be that anybody with powers like Taco has was called a SysGod. Sys_GOD_. You added God for a reason.

    On that system, as far as you were concerned, they were GOD. Period. There was no other diety out there. They could do whatever the hell they wanted to to you. Alot of the BBSs even had line noise generator keys that was useful for torturing a user for lengthy periods of time (as opposed to just directly dropping their connection.)

    BBS users got used to being in the mindset that they were the slaves the SysGods desires when on the SysGod's system.

    Sure alot of BBSs proclaimed to be fair and just, but just like ANY other group of people in real life, the leaders, those ones with powers, exerted control in order to keep the group of people quelled down to those of the right and prober mindset.

    Here on /. alot of stuff is allowed to go on. You can say sucks, you can fight for whatever damn system of government that you believe in, you can pretty much say or do whatever it is that you please.

    You just cannot question the system or the system's operators. Period. Thats it. Most BBSs had the same policy ("The SysGod is /ALWAYS/ right." "Never question the Sysop." Or so forth) and it is only reasonable to expect that policy to carry over to real life.

    I have been kicked off of three online forum systems and yet I am highly welcomed on others. The reason is that on some forums I fit well into the social and 'intellecual' atmosphere, while on others I manage to piss everybody off rather quickly.

    Indeed, one can see a simular situation with many IRC channels, while welcome on one, the same person may be quickly banned from another. Same behavior, staying on topic for each channel even, but it is the atmosphere within the channel itself.

    The lesson?

    *GROUPS MAINTAIN THEIR OWN*. Those who do not fit in are kicked out. Somebody always ends up with the power to maintain such. Sometimes it is a general group consensus (as on K5) while other times it is through a limited democracy (such as on /.) whilst still yet other times it is through a monarchy (overworked Sysop system) or through a Polyarchy (Sysop + Cosysops, or what other forums call moderators, those who can ban users and such).

    Welcome to life, current population, Way To Fucking Many. Put in your earplugs, close your eyes, and hang on.
    • Nice post, man. I used to run a BBS when I was 14. I paid for the second line by mowing lawns. I ran it on a 386 based XT. It was a hobby site for R/C car enthusiasts. ASCII graphic art and all. It ran OPUS BBS (do you have mirror shades on? N/y). I had one rule: "If you piss me off, you're gone". I paid for that line, that BBS - even the god damned electricity - myself. And I was possessive about it. We had a nice little community - we organized races, talked shit about parts - it was productive. I maintained it for four years. In that time, I kickbanned two people, and had to have the phone company prosecute one of them for demon dialing.

      But unlike the systems you're talking about - unlike my system - unlike almost any system ever - Slashdot has no banning policy. They explicitly state that they don't ban people, don't have "Gods", and that the Moderation system is run by "the Users".

      I agree with you 100% man. It's my experience running a free service that pisses me off so much about Slashdot. If they had my rule, none of this would have ever happened. Instead they feverishly stick to this "User Moderated" bullshit. And it is bullshit. A huge, stinking, visible-to-a-quarter-million-people pile of bullshit. Administrators have total power over the Moderation System and frequently manipulate who participates, manipulate the posts of specific disliked users, and manipulate entire threads. That's all they have to say. And they won't. They don't have the balls. They just keep posting stories about Microsoft rigging polls and then go silently rig their Moderation system.

      It stinks. Be an asshole, but be honest! People respect your for it! I know this from experience! If I were them I would have kickbanned me a year ago (well, they tried). I'd kickban the page-wideners, page-lengtheners, Javascript kids, goatse.cx posters, all of them. I'd institute the rule I figured out at age 14: "Piss off CmdrTaco and you're gone". That was half a lifetime ago, and it stuns me that they don't do the same. I don't get it. The phrase "passive aggressive" has all kinds of applicablility here.

      Hence my journal. (-:

      Oh, I nearly forgot. I miss the old ASCII art days:

      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp_.-^^---....,,--_
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp_-- &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp--_
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &lt &nbsp &nbsp &nbspMODBOMBING IS &nbsp &nbsp &gt)
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp | &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp TERRORISM &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp|
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp\._ &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp _./
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp ```--. . , ; .--'''
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp| | &nbsp |
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp .-=|| &nbsp| |=-.
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp `-=#$%&%$#=-'
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp| ; &nbsp:|
      &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp_____.,-#%&$@%#?~,._____

      • I remember when The Draw first came out, ANSI art for the rest of us! :)

        But seriously, did you really think that the creator of a database system (not to mention somebody who for a good part of the database's life span had direct physical access to it) was not in complete control of it?

        Yes a general "Don't piss off Taco and Hemos" rule should be posted someplace, preferably in big bold print, but I have always figured the entire "Don't Piss Of People With Godly Powers" thing to be a bit of general common sense.

        You wouldn't mailbomb or flame your ISPs network admins would you? (or mail server admins at least, heh.)

        Sure it isn't stated that anything 'bad' will happen to you, but don't be surprised if your mailbox fills up offers for penis enlarging cream.

        By the same rule, making friends with Network Admins can have beneficial results (rumors always go around of people on cable modem networks in the earlier days getting their speed caps either reduced in severity or removed completely by being nice to the Network Admins).

        It should be listed publicly, and indeed errors have been made all around (and it hasn't helped that the Trolls have latched on to this, people who have legitimate complaints and are sincerely concerned about Slashdot's well being are often times drowned out by the noise of the trolls. I don't troll and I only have one account, why would a person need more then one account on /.? I can understand on smaller forums where it is easy to make a reputation for yourself, but seriously, on /., why more then 1 account? Say what you mean and say it often, it people don't like it they may mod you down, but hopefully M2 will help restore some balance of "It was on topic, so keep it at least at 1" rather then "if you don't like it piss off".)

        Of course I am just an obstinate prick any ways who'll say what he means and damnations to anybody who doesn't /want/ to hear what I say.

        I see no need to troll to do that. Hell I piss off enough people just saying what I believe in, no need to fabricate stuff! :)

        (besides, links to pr0n images I remember when The Draw first came out, ANSI art for the rest of us! :)

        But seriously, did you really think that the creator of a database system (not to mention somebody who for a good part of the database's life span had direct physical access to it) was not in complete control of it?

        Yes a general "Don't piss off Taco and Hemos" rule should be posted someplace, preferably in big bold print, but I have always figured the entire "Don't Piss Of People With Godly Powers" thing to be a bit of general common sense.

        You wouldn't mailbomb or flame your ISPs network admins would you? (or mail server admins at least, heh.)

        Sure it isn't stated that anything 'bad' will happen to you, but don't be surprised if your mailbox fills up offers for penis enlarging cream.

        By the same rule, making friends with Network Admins can have beneficial results (rumors always go around of people on cable modem networks in the earlier days getting their speed caps either reduced in severity or removed completely by being nice to the Network Admins).

        It should be listed publicly, and indeed errors have been made all around (and it hasn't helped that the Trolls have latched on to this, people who have legitimate complaints and are sincerely concerned about Slashdot's well being are often times drowned out by the noise of the trolls. I don't troll and I only have one account, why would a person need more then one account on /.? I can understand on smaller forums where it is easy to make a reputation for yourself, but seriously, on /., why more then 1 account? Say what you mean and say it often, it people don't like it they may mod you down, but hopefully M2 will help restore some balance of "It was on topic, so keep it at least at 1" rather then "if you don't like it piss off".)

        Of course I am just an obstinate prick any ways who'll say what he means and damnations to anybody who doesn't /want/ to hear what I say.

        I see no need to troll to do that. Hell I piss off enough people just saying what I believe in, no need to fabricate stuff! :)

        Oh well, I read at -1 and I hardly notice the trolls at all. I only see a few per story now days anyways, have they even really been around lately? (I have only seen those page lengthening trolls inside of journals, never in an actual story, so, uh. . . . Hmm. Heh.)

        Setting up your filters always helps. I give a +3 to Funny, Insightful, and Interesting comments, ACs are at 0, since I browse at -1 all the time it doesn't really make any difference though, heh.

        That and I am a speed reader, so its not like trolls bother me anyways. They are what, 5-10 seconds of my life wasted? Maximum. Heh. Big deal. ^-^ Just thankfuly the goatse people finaly shutup, I hated the unoriginality of it. Really, after the first few weeks it got /so/ damn boring, I think everybody on the net saw it after the first year. Not like it is offensive or anything, yeesh. (then again, I am a person who is still trying to find something tasteless in alt.tasteless. :) :) :) )
  • I indeed moderated up The Post as interesting. it was. And so I lost metamod priveleges, and haven't been asked to moderate again since. not surprising given the time, but i don't expect to be ever again. So, frankly, I see a very good reason to leave slashdot. It's been fun, but.... isn't this supposed to be about what the community wants?
    • isn't this supposed to be about what the community wants?

      No, but that's a common misunderstanding. It's actually about what CmdrTaco wants. Of course, the stories have always been about what CmdrTaco wants, but as it turns out, the comments are also about what he wants. It's just that this message has been relayed to the users in a rather obfuscated fashion.

      Before you run off and quit Slashdot, though, why don't you write CmdrTaco an email and ask him why you were banned from moderating? There might be a perfectly good explanation, and I'm sure everyone would like this little "mystery" cleared up. I think his email is malda "at" slashdot.org.

  • For what it's worth:
    I modded up the comment, and several replies in the thread, sometime around January 17. I haven't been able to metamoderate since then.

    (My "user info" page claims that my karma is "mostly the sum of moderation done to users comments". Since I can post with +1 bonus, it seems as if the non-human part of the system approved of the way that I had been moderating. Guess I can't do it anymore, though.)
  • You're very open about not wanting to follow the rules. You have repeatedly stated your contempt for the aims of the moderation system.

    So why do you care who gets to moderate and who doesn't? You could just turn off moderation and read the posts unfiltered. Then you have total control over what you read.

    Unless you do want a filtering system. You just want it to filter the posts that you think should be filtered. Heil Sllort! [angelfire.com]

    • You're very open about not wanting to follow the rules.

      I'm actually in the process of making a deliberate attempt to follow the rules to the letter. Notice that this is different than following the rules in spirit. I'm kind of on a quest to understand the spirit of the rules; that's the best way to think of it.

      So why do you care who gets to moderate and who doesn't?

      I don't. I'm providing a public service to those who do.

      You could just turn off moderation and read the posts unfiltered.

      How do I do that? -1/Nested/Newest? It's completely unreadable, the page widening/lengthening posts have rendered the discussion a piece of risque modern art.

      • So you're pulling a "work to rule"? But that's a positive thing! I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility as a troll.

        If you're saying that the editors often act stupidly, you'll get no argument from me. But then so do most of the users too, and most people in general. The purpose of the moderation system [slashdot.org] is to work around this kind of human fallibility.

        But by the same token, the idea of giving editors infinite mod points is a really bad one. If, as Rob claims, the editors just echo the prejudices of most users, then you have a lot of effort for very little result. But what really happens is that editors follow their own prejudices. Statistically, that may be the same thing, but it discourages voluntary participation and breeds ill will.

        On the other hand, I have no problem at all with blacklisting moderators who simply ignore the rules. There are too many people who use their mod points just to promote ideas they agree with and censor those they disagree with. It's usually not clear when moderators do this, but I don't see any ambiguity when somebody mods up obvious spam. We do not want to let people hijack discussions for their own purposes, even when some illiterate moderator wants to help them. That would have the effect of turning Slashdot over to every crazy fascist who knows how get people's adrenaline pumping.

        • If you're saying that the editors often act stupidly, you'll get no argument from me.

          exactly. you're a troll.

          I have no problem at all with blacklisting moderators who simply ignore the rules.

          do you think people would moderate differently if they publicly stated that one bad moderation will remove you from the moderation pool, and that bad moderation is determined by CmdrTaco? also, do you feel that their documentation about who is allowed to moderate on slashdot is misleading or untruthful? (i'll give you a hint: it is).

          • exactly. you're a troll.
            Please explain something to this poor FAGG0T: exactly how does questioning somebody's judgment make me a troll? It's one thing to throw around meaningless insults. But we all make shit, and most of it smells. (Isn't that how you and I met?) Pointing out this objective fact is hardly trolling.
            do you think people would moderate differently if they publicly stated that one bad moderation will remove you from the moderation pool, and that bad moderation is determined by CmdrTaco?
            Probably not. But it would prevent them from future abuses.

            Come on, if you don't care what the moderators do, why have them at all? Your answer is that they filter out the obviously pointless and abusive crap. But there are people who actually enjoy reading fecal fantasy posts. Should they be allowed to mod them up?

            also, do you feel that their documentation about who is allowed to moderate on slashdot is misleading or untruthful? (i'll give you a hint: it is).
            Well, there you have me. I don't think anybody at Slashdot has any future as a technical writer. But Slashdot is hardly the first product to ship with hopeless documentation. Not many people can do write readable software docs. That's why I get big bucks just for grinding out boring little API docs, instead of having to work for a living!
  • Yes, I too modded up the Post and got my M1/M2 priveleges revoked. It's amazing to me that Rob cared so much about that post (which he has publically called insignificant--ha!) to hunt down each and every user who moderated it up.

    Sad, sad, sad.

    As one of the 3,000 people who actually takes the time to post (and not just post crap) and contribute to the discussion--like my viewpoint or not--I take offense at being banned like this.

    I wonder if Rob and company realize that without those of us who post comments to the stories, that there would be no slashdot?

    Well, sllort, for a while I didn't understand why you and a lot of the trolls were so upset at Rob & Co. (and I really had zero respect for you in particular, BTW) but over time it's become increasingly clear to me. And I think you're right. The thing that's most annoying about it all is that they just aren't honest about their policies.

    The really, truly sad thing is that the editors just don't care--about honest, integrity, fairness (for all of their users). I guess the only thing that can be done to overcome that is to point out their hypocrisy and shout it from the rooftops. Kudos to you, sllort, for doing just that. I'm going to shout too, if only from my sig (hand added BTW; I suggest you do the same since /. sigs can be turned off).

    -- Shamus

    Have you been banned from moderation [slashdot.org]?
    • and I really had zero respect for you in particular, BTW

      historically, i haven't posted things from this account which would earn someone respect. quite the opposite. loathing, disgust, anger - sure - but not respect. i used this account for trolling. if you measure the success of a troll by the degree to which he is reviled, i was pretty good at it. there are a lot of people who have called the character i play when posting from this account a whiny brat. those people would be correct. i'm not asking for people to stop hating me - just for them to listen with an open mind.

      i've kind of changed my tune recently out of sheer disbelief at what i was seeing. my little anonymous sociology experiment of playing an asshole at threshold -1 is all fine & good, but... you can't see through a glass darkly forever. i could have started another account with which to express my discontent, but the editors would know by IPID who i was, and i figured if i was going to start yelling about honesty, i should start out by using the account i've used to post the most miserable garbage imaginable to this weblog. i did, and i admit it.

      i'll add your name to the list of banned moderators. i suggest your read jamie's comment in trolltalk (trolltalk.n3.net) and also check out my recent discussion with michael in the META thread (from my user history). if you're interested in further reading, that is.

      (hand added BTW; I suggest you do the same since /. sigs can be turned off

      heh, now you're thinking like a troll. i started doing that right after Rob posted the 250,000 vs. 3,000 figure. sigs are off by default. hand posting your sig reaches 100 times as many people.

      --

      Banned from Moderating? [slashdot.org]
      • i suggest your read jamie's comment in trolltalk (trolltalk.n3.net) and also check out my recent discussion with michael in the META thread (from my user history).
        That made for some entertaining reading. I still can't understand why Michael (in the Michael/Seth/sllort thread) won't come right out and repudiate your two claims, though. It seems like it would be easy enough for them to do. But it also seems they're bent on dredging up posts that you did in 'troll mode' while conveniently ignoring the posts in question that you mentioned.

        Maybe, just maybe, could it be that you're right? I bet that would really stick in their craw since, as you say:
        historically, i haven't posted things from this account which would earn someone respect. quite the opposite. loathing, disgust, anger - sure - but not respect. ... i'm not asking for people to stop hating me - just for them to listen with an open mind.
        From what I've seen in those threads, you're in danger of losing your troll credentials... But then again, exposing Michael, Rob, Jamie et. al. for the trolls that they are would be a small price to pay, eh?

        -- Shamus

        Have you been banned from moderation [slashdot.org]?
        • I don't know why Michael won't repudiate them either. As far as my claims of mass moderation and mass banning, I think he can't because I'm right. As far as my claims about myself being mod-bombed - I don't know who did that to me. I know that I lost 42 karma in a day to "Overrated" and "Redundant" moderations to old non-troll posts. Maybe it was a trollbuster with proxied accounts. I don't know why they hauled out a bunch of trolls I posted at -1. Maybe they really thought that's what I was talking about. I really didn't want them to have to spend time digging, I'm happy to do it if I can find a way to access my old posts.

          But the evasiveness and time spent to discredit me... speaks for itself.

          In danger of losing my troll credentials? Indeed. These are dangerous times, perhaps. Quote at the bottom of Slashdot the day I loaded it to watch Malda trolling me in the META discussion:

          "You can always pick up your needle and move to another groove. -- Tim Leary"
          --

          Banned from Moderating? [slashdot.org]
        • Shamus, I'm replying to you in order to trigger messaging. Re-read my journal, and check the update at the very bottom. One person was not banned from moderating.

          You cool with that?
          --
          You're reading Managed Agreement [slashdot.org].
          • Well, isn't that interesting. I've been tempted to mod Taco as flamebait on occassion (of course, only when he really deserved it)--if I'd known that would prevent me from being banned, I would've done it long ago... Professional Troll courtesy indeed!

            Perhaps this guy has just slipped under Taco's (or whomever Taco assigned the job to's) radar. I think it's only a matter of time before he gets slapped as well.

            On the other hand, if not, then WTF is up with that? Someone's idea of a joke?

            Pathetic...

            -- Shamus

            Have you been banned from moderation [slashdot.org]?
            • It's weird, isn't it. I'm not even cynical enough to come up with their motivation. Maybe they just missed him.
              • I'm not even cynical enough to come up with their motivation. Maybe they just missed him.

                Heh, that's a classic game to play with prisoners. You start showing favors to one, then the rest think that the favored one has some kind of "in" with the captors, so they turn against their own.
      • If you're making a list, add me to it. I spent one point to moderate the original message up to register my interest in the comment and attempt to draw the attention of the editors to it, and haven't been able to M2 since. Perhaps editor attention was the last thing I should have wanted.

        However, are you positive that the lack of M2 ability is an effect of the $rtbl flag being flipped on all of our accounts and not a symptom of the continual dumping of moderation points into the comment?

        • If you're making a list, add me to it.

          Done.

          . Perhaps editor attention was the last thing I should have wanted.

          Now you're catching on.

          However, are you positive that the lack of M2 ability is an effect of the $rtbl flag being flipped on all of our accounts

          100% Positive. Iff you were previously able to metamoderate, and now, when you click this link [slashdot.org], you see "You are currently not eligible to Meta Moderate" no matter how many days you wait, you have been manually blacklisted by an editor. Keep in mind that it is trivial for them to print out a message that explains to you that you've been manually blacklisted. They even have an entry in your user account for the reason you've been blacklisted. They have instead made the choice not to inform you of this.
          --

          Banned from Moderating? [slashdot.org]
  • 50 karma, no bad metamod, never modded at all, and no answers to this question [slashdot.org].
  • I've read a lot of posts and am familiar from ancient BBS days with this whole phenomenon. Frankly, the eds are right on two points:

    (1) it's just SlashDot, not the world

    (2) it's their site.

    Also, I would add, the slash approach to discussions is great. These journals are great, and so they are right that

    (3) they allow "bad" comments to stay around, but just make them harder to find.

    However, taking away modding priv etc. is just so petty. Yeah they can do it. Yes, you are emotionally unstable if you let it get to you. However, if you just say, "Oh, well, next site please" and remove slashdot from your toolbar, or whatever, then you are emotionally stable and still right. You don't have to like SlashDot. You can post your dislike on SlashDot. If they don't want to put up with it, their mechanisms will get thicker and thicker and you will end up with a traditional media source with no user participation at all... which would be bad for SlashDot since it doesn't employ journalists to develope stories.

    It's true when they say, "get over it", it's even true that Taco et al. "try to be fair", and it's certainly true that dictatorial control of /. doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the real world. However, dictatorial control leads to power trips. Power trips are pathetic. It won't be the last BBS or the first to fossilize.

    Do the right thing! Don't rest on, "get over it". Or "I'm -trying- to be fair." Forget you ego and do the sensible thing, whatever that is.

    Frankly, I think making the thread off topic was legitimate editorial control... I read it AFTER it had been slapped, so that's good for Slashdot's system. It had nothing to do with Oracle. However, screwing with peoples moderation if they innocently thought it deserved moderation up etc. is just petty and pointless.
    • If they don't want to put up with it, their mechanisms will get thicker and thicker and you will end up with a traditional media source with no user participation at all...

      Or they could just FUCKING GET OVER THEMSELVES and go back to the way Slashdot used to be, when they didn't secretly ban people, interacted with their audience, and even admitted that the troll soap opera was a big part of what their readership was here for [slashdot.org]. note that post is moderated to 5. they didn't always bitchslap the fuck out of meta threads.

      Spake CmdrTaco:


      [23:33] So at least be clever.
      [23:33] Don't post fucking lame crap.
      [23:33] Don't post so often.
      [23:33] 1/2 the trolling, twice the brains.
      [23:33] You'd make my life a helluva lot easier.
      [23:34] oog is so lame.
      [23:34] thats the worst of them.
      [23:34] creativeity of a chimp.
      [23:34] used to post fucking way to much.
      [23:34] oog is like a poop joke.
      [23:34] 3rd graders could do it.
      [23:34] thats the lamest kind of troll.
      [23:34] its not a troll, its spam.
      [23:35] its being a pest just to be a pest.
      [23:35] *so* lame.
      in what we actually do for a living?
      [23:35] understand that I get email once a week
      that says
      [23:35] "Accounts like Ooog are proof that
      Slashdot doesn't work"
      [23:35] think about that when you do lame trolls.
      [23:35] "You should ban oogs IP"
      [23:36] I have a guy who may become my email
      secretary.
      [23:36] he's gonna be tech support.
      [23:36] but he may start reading
      malda@slashdot.org
      [23:36] that makes me cry.
      retiring
      [23:36] You fuckers stole my email address.
      [23:36] bitches!
      [23:37] because of crap like you, I can't even
      read my own email without help!

      the winds of change are blowing, and someone else did a much better job of describing them here [slashdot.org] than i did. i don't troll anymore, but at this point, i got ten bucks that says Taco wishes i'd leave him alone and go back to trolling.
      --
      You're reading Managed Agreement [slashdot.org].
  • After two or three posts there I went from karma 40something to my current 36.

    And I am no longer able to metamoderate. Not that I ever did, but still.
  • I moderated the post as insightful, and then I lost my metamoderating privilidges within an hour.

    I've had enough of this place. Fuck Rob, fuck /.

    I'm going over to K5, I hope Slashdot turns into a big pile of heaping shit.
    • I'm going over to K5, I hope Slashdot turns into a big pile of heaping shit.

      You're too late, it already has. But it isn't Rob's fault. No, instead it's all the pointless idiots 'First Post'ing and 'BSD is dying'ing and 'Linux is led by faggots'ing. The slashdot S/N ratio is so low that there's not too much point anymore unless you browse at +4 or so. And then, you just see a lot of (sometimes good) posts that say the same thing.

      Rob is trying to fix it but it's probably too late. There's an old saying: Where values are present, laws are unnecessary; where values are absent, laws are unenforceable. Slashdot is a victim of its own success. The only thing that Rob has done 'wrong' is in not communicating the true nature of Slashdot (as it is now) to the users.

      And even here, I think it's just a matter of Rob not updating the documentation rather than being intentionally deceptive. You see, despite my highish user ID, I've been here since the beginning (used my 'real life name' back then). And I remember when this site really *was* just a small group of people chatting and joking around without a great amount of authoritarian measures from Rob. He has attempted to clean this place up but it isn't easy.

      Additionally, he's probably getting high blood pressure worrying about how to make Slashdot turn a profit and keep VA afloat. My personal guess is that he has a lot of heat in his kitchen--probably more than any of us realize--and gets hot under the collar about all the insults he has hurled at him and all the ungrateful slobs who would cut his throat if they met him in a dark alley. Give him a boatload of slack because he desperately needs it, in my completely not humble opinion.

  • I have this sneaky feeling about what's happened to me:

    * procmail'ed
    * banned from M2
    * banned from M1
    * banned from +1 posting bonus (maybe; I don't know the threshold. If anyone knows the minimum karma for that, let me know.)

    This is from one sarcastic remark about him not answering one of my emails, back in July 2000.

    Lesson: Taco doesn't care, even if you volunteer to write an M2 FAQ. I still get to put up with the occasional question about the M2 system--I think I'll bookmark this to better help people in the future. :)
  • I've never been able to moderate anyhow, but recently I decided to uncheck the "willing to moderate" checkbox. Why should I waste my time allocating 5 measly mod points when the editors will happily mod down an entire thread (about 1000 mod points in an afternoon by my estimate)

    However, at the time my cow-orker had mod points (he's been on slashdot a long time and usually gets them every week). I pointed out "the post" to him and he modded it up. I just checked with him now; he hasn't been able to moderate since and can't metamoderate either.

    So isn't that interesting.

  • Yup (Score:1)

    by nytes ( 231372 )
    I moded the PoD up.

    Then, a couple of days ago, I noticed that the little "have you meta'd" today message was missing from my main page. I was wondering why.

    Now I know.
  • ... anyone else notice that there ain't a whole lot of moderating going on? Or posting, for that matter.

    Maybe someone got a little over-zealous with their behind-the-scenes machinations.
  • i did not mod the post directly. i meta-modded any -1 comment mod to unfair, and any +1 comment mod to fair. i still meta-mod on a daily basis.

    ________________________________________________ __ _
    if an AC posts in the forest, does anyone read it.
    • I'll take that as a sign that they are not yet banning people for Metamodding badly. Thanks for the info. (-:

      --
      You're Reading Managed Agreement [slashdot.org]
      • so, lets see. what part of i m2ed 'offtopic' mods as unfair, given the context, do you think is m2ing badly? you start out bitching that the post kept being modded back down in some sort of illuminati conspiracy and now you're bicthing that someone who 'unfair'd those mods modded badly. yes, in a classic sense it is badly, however as the topic raised in your comment is one that should be allowed to see the light of day, and not ignominy, what do you feel the correct course of action would have been?

        in essence, i was, via m2, attempting to redress at least some of the umpteen editorial mods (if its possible that editorial mods can be m2ed, to which i don't know the answer) that you are, fairly rightly, calling unjust.
        ________________________________________________ __ __

        i've seen a number of people bitch via their posts about stories being submitted by someone, and then not actually put up for several days, and then with cred going to someone else. is that fair? shouldn't they cite the first submitter, even if their submission wasn't perfect? especially given some of the utter drivel that has slipped through? i personally could make this complaint several times over, but i fail to see the point. cred, i don't need it from slasdot, i can get all the cred i need elsewhere. for me its enough that the story is posted, although as an Open Source OS user who isn't a particularly huge fan of linux, i feel that this site often dismisses, if not overlooks, efforts that aren't linux oriented. lets face it, its not a desktop OS, and it never will be. i'd rather work on Atheos [atheos.cx], where there's more to do, even if there's no opportunity to be a kernel god TM.


        in many ways the bottom line is 'if you don't like the way its being done, do it yourself.' other sites have been based on slashcode: to wit kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] et al.; i'm sure that if you a fairly proficient coder you could knock something together with jetspeed [apache.org] or with zope [zope.org], implementing moderation in whatever manner you deemed 'good.' its your decision. from the sheer quantity of mods i'd say that you addressed a topic that is of no uncertain level of interest. taco even invited submissions of patches here [slashdot.org] to the issue of multiple editorial moderations. so you can't say that you haven't been invited to participate in the solution or create you own.
        my immediate reaction to your reply was a desire for a supernova flamewar, but hey, its really NOT that important, is it? instead i'll confess that i'm curious as to how you'll reply.
        _______________________________________________

        • I'm sorry I wasn't clear. My post was Offtopic, and according to the rules here, it should be Moderated and Metamoderated as such. However, many Offtopic posts are made here and are marked as Insightful because they say something many people agree with. I believe those people should all be moderated to -1 as well, or Slashdot should get over it's fascist rule of posting comments that only reply to the story, and allow users to post comments that reply to each other. An example? How about Slashdot Editor Chris Dibona's Offtopic Post [slashdot.org] in the "Legend of the Rangers" story. This too deserved an editor modslapping but didn't get it because of who posted it. This too is Offtopic.

          In short, I support your point of view, and I simultaneously argue that your point of view is, in the eyes of Taco, lawlessness that will get you banned from Moderating.

          they cite the first submitter, even if their submission wasn't perfect?

          You're assuming that they still know who the original submitter was, or care (-;

          'if you don't like the way its being done, do it yourself.

          I fucking hate that argument. To me, that argument is a slap in the face to every American. Don't like the fact that Ashcroft is detaining people without charging them? Move to Canada! Start your own country! America: love it or leave it! It's the same argument. I believe there's a lot to be said for the people who stick around, tough it out, and fight for change. I think that leaving is a cop out. Just my opinion. I just got so sick of people posting "if you hate Slashdot so much, why not leave" comments in the META thread... from what I can tell, those people want everyone to leave, and Slashdot to die. Maybe that's the right solution, I'm not the one to judge.

          from the sheer quantity of mods i'd say that you addressed a topic that is of no uncertain level of interest.

          Let me quote Taco's journal here: "Since a handful of users have started complaining about a few Slashdot things that they don't understand". In short, there is a very certain level of interest in it in Taco's mind: zilch. He believes that no signifigant percentage of /. users give a shit about this, that the comment-posting minority is a fringe group that should be kept on a tight leash.

          Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't know.

          --
          You're Reading Managed Agreement [slashdot.org]
  • So, if a bunch of active moderators loose their mod ability, does that mean that the ./ status quo will change?
    • I think if history has proven anything, it's that the Status Quo at Slashdot won't change. Come hell or high water. Examine the history of Slashdot Moderation [slashdot.org]. Moderation used to be performed by a hand picked few. Then by 400 people, which caused Rob to shortly ban the handful that didn't agree with him. Even if the number of moderators continues to expand until the entirety of the Free World reads Slashdot, the hand picking aspect is going to stay in place.

      --
      You're Reading Managed Agreement [slashdot.org]
  • I encountered the post during M2.
    I meta-modded, as you may guess.
    I also then modded the post up.

    Later I encountered a M2 page which
    contained over 50% "unfair" moderations,
    with bad impact on my karma. Maybe Rob Malda
    posts were along those?

    The next day I mailed why I can't M2 any longer.
    I mailed again and submitted a bug in Slashdot ;)

    No answer as of the week.

    I don't know whether I still should read /.
    I don't know whether I should get a new account,
    either. Accumulating as much karma as I have as
    now (+17) is quite difficult for a non-US-citizen
    with sometimes different views (i.e. I don't agree
    linux being good (since 2.1 kernel series), but I
    do like BSD).

    When will we hear from the Officials?
    Guess. Never.
    So long, and thanks for the fish.
    Prejudice (GPL=bad) was acknowledged by the
    Editors' actions.
  • I have submitted a story to symlink.ch
    (a German /.-similar magazine) which reads
    (in HTML source view) as follows. (The story
    is not approved yet.)

    mirabilos [slashdot.org] schreibt
    +"

    Wie bestimmt die meisten Symlink-Leser wissen, gibt es
    auf Slashdot ein Moderationssystem.
    Nun hat jemand einen Meta-Kommentar in irgendeine Diskussion
    gepostet, der ber 800 Mal moderiert wurde (mittlerweile
    sind es nur noch 400). Die Editoren haben dann Leuten den
    Zugang zu M1 (Moderation) und/oder M2 (Metamoderation)
    entzogen, die


    • auf den Kommentar geantwortet haben
    • den Kommentar und/oder Antworten gut moderiert haben
    • positive Moderationen (s.o.) gut bzw. schlechte
      Moderationen unfair metamoderiert haben


    Auch ich habe meine Rechte durch $rtsp eingrebüßt.
    Der fragliche Post ist mittlerweile archiviert und dennoch
    hier einsehbar. [slashdot.org]
    Als Antw [slashdot.org]
    +ort eines Geschädigten
    gibt es einen Journal-Eintrag mit ber 100 Kommentaren und guten
    Erklärungsversuchen, was passiert ist - use the source, luke.
    Was mich am meisten stö"rt, ist, daß eMails an @slashdot.org
    betreffend den Moderationsentzug ungeantwortet verhallen, sodaá
    kein Betroffener - vor dem Lesen dieses Threads - weiß, was mit
    seinem Account passiert ist.

    Ich bleibe dennoch bei Slashdot,
    da es einfach - trotz schlechter S/N-Rate - eine Menge guter
    Informationen bietet. Allerdings lese ich auch - wenigstens
    in Headlines - symlink, OpenBSD journal, Daily Dæmon News,
    heise, The Register und neuerdings k5 und RootPrompt.
    Ich hoffe, dieser Artikel wird den Fakten zu mehr Popularitt
    verhelfen. Vielleicht kann ein Nichtbetroffener ja mal nachhorchen,
    was dort passiert ist. Vielleicht liest ein Editor mit, der
    keine Angst hat, hier (im Gegensatz zu /.) zu posten.
    Anyone?"

  • Has anyone on here seriously considered a /. strike. The 250k who read come here mostly to see the discussion by the 3k that post. Maybe it is time to have a "No Posting" day to protest the admin's actions. If, after a day, we still have no comment from Rob about his actions, have a "No Post" week combined with no moderation. After his stories fill with "first post" and goatse.cx, what will he do? Mod it all himself?

    If you want to get Rob's attention, hit him where it hurts most...in his boss's wallet.

  • As I noted in my journal [slashdot.org], as I am sure countless others have, there is a forbidden post [slashdot.org], which at the time I made reference to it, had the following moderation totals: Offtopic=378, Flamebait=4, Troll=27, Redundant=5, Insightful=98, Interesting=206, Informative=49, Funny=12, Overrated=12, Underrated=63, Total=854.

    Now for some reason, the moderation totals are as follows: Offtopic=74, Flamebait=1, Redundant=2, Insightful=20, Interesting=33, Informative=11, Funny=3, Overrated=1, Underrated=13, Total=158

    Wow! What happened to 694 of those moderations? They apparently have ceased to exist! Now the slashdot editors have seen fit to remove the proof of the moderation conspiricy! The post is too old to moderate anymore (I have mod access today and can't touch it), so their goal complete, the slashdot editors, have changed history, Orwellian style. [k-1.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close