OpenEuphoria

2. Re: Moderation

• Posted by ryanj Jan 15, 2015
• 5612 views

I noticed that. Is it fair to keep someone on the bad list for something that happened ~9 months ago?

4. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 15, 2015
• 5610 views

Definitely not, if it was only one incident and that someone has a clean record before and since. Especially not if the person apologizes or is otherwise able to come to a compromise with the moderators and other parties (if applicable)...

It's more justifiable for someone who tends to make a habit out of it... and even more so when that habit tends to pop up shortly after extended moderation is turned off...

That said, no one is subjected to this on a permanent basis. A long enough period of good behavior, by itself, will result in this being lifted. Violations within a period could get it extended, however. (Which is how it's possible that the period could be longer than 9 months.)

6. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5545 views

I feel this is the most important aspect of your reply. I am completely willing to do this.

I've said before that I was willing to compromise. It appears Kat isn't, at least not directly, but if a middleman can help accomplish that, then I'm all for it.

Yes, so does anyone else who might be interested. Deleted posts are publicly visible. So are all edits made to posts. This system is designed to be transparent, so that not only other moderators but the general public can review what happened and judge the original moderator.

Agreed. I therefore point out that the current system was a compromise designed to allow Kat to express her valuable ideas and contributions while simply filtering out things which may be inappropriate. There are many forums and blogs which require moderator approval of ALL comments before they become visible... this is just another version of that.

Other users of this forum (such as Critic) have been banned for less.

Agreed. I'll be happy to abide by the terms you have laid out if Kat does as well and follows the CodeOfConduct (and since it's a fresh start, any violations will be followed up by the gradual scale used for newbies - moderator warnings on the forum, private emails, and so on).

Technically, only two of the usernames that I know of that Kat has used are under extended moderation (not banned, mind you, just moderated): useless_ and john1988. In fact, the user account useless and an even older one (it was either Kat or katsmeow) remain wholely unmoderated.

If Kat wants to start fresh with another new user account, that's also perfectly acceptable.

Imagine this. A police officer pulls you over for speeding and gives you a ticket. Is that something personal? I'd think not - the officer is just doing their job.

Now imagine that you attempt to fight back by swearing at the officer, insulting that person's ancestry, etc etc. Does it become personal at this point? I'd say yes, but only because you made it so.

Now imagine that you tried to claim that all this happened because of a personal dislike the officer took to you. In my view, such a claim is patently false.

One can take this further. Imagine this was taken as a valid defense. Now imagine that you were able to somehow arrange for such an incident to occur with every police officer in the world. Now what? Every police officer now has a 'personal' problem with you, so none of them can enforce the law against you.

You've now made yourself immune to all of law enforcement. You can do anything you want, entirely unrestrained.

Do you see the problem here?

8. Re: Moderation

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5529 views

Depends on how bad they were.

10. Re: Moderation

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5531 views

Then jim is in the right.

Irrelevant.

So?

When she is banned from the forum?

By a thread. (No pun intended.)

Debatable. Our dev team > one person.

Reasonable suggestions, but you obviously don't know kat. She can't behave. If she was just persnickety, her eccentricities would be tolerable given her passion for coding. I really wish there was a reasonable kat, because she does have good ideas and obvious skills and a love for all of it. How awesome would that be? She could be the queen of Euphoria! I mean, how many females we got parsing this forum? She really should take advantage of that circumstance.

jimcbrown deleting posts is diplomacy.

It's the dev team's word against hers. While jim may act with autonomy in our name, it's not like we're unaware of the circumstances or can be. Jim- and all the dev team and admins- have proven to be reasonable and level-headed and all of us have only the best intentions for Euphoria in mind. I don't even need proof. If Matt or Derek or Jim or any of the other admins or devs do something without evidence, they have earned my trust- and the community's- to not be questioned. Of course, I'm not blind. If they wanted to censor you, for example, or David Cuny (that belligerent old codger!*), I might have to have a little evidence...

*said with great humor and affection!

EDIT ADD: I want also to say that Kat has advocates on the dev/admin team(s). Whereas I am usually adamantly opposed to kat's interactions in our public forums, Derek has a more patient approach. I think we all appreciate Kat's coding passion and ability; we just differ on how acceptable she is for public exposure.

That's reasonable. In this case, I defer to jim.

12. Re: Moderation

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5495 views

This is pretty useless (heh) IMO without something in the UI.

Why the extra hoops? Can we get some actual links? At least for mods / admins? I'm fine with allowing logged in users to see that, too, frankly.

Matt

14. Re: Moderation

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5489 views

A link or a button or something, instead of typing stuff into the address bar.

I'd think a "recently deleted" link that goes to that view you mentioned. And then when you click on the posts in that view, you see the post instead of the error page for looking at a deleted post.

Matt

16. Re: Moderation

• Posted by ghaberek (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5507 views

I'm coming in a little late on this conversation, but, could this be an additional "Deleted" checkbox on the Recent page? It could be unchecked by default.

-Greg

18. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5459 views

Done.

Done.

I'll work on this, but it's a little harder to do.

20. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5537 views

Ok, changed.

22. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5446 views

That's a good point ... the only other way of making contact is through the dev list or through _tom's Open Euphony http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/125105.wc

I believe ChrisB, one of the moderators, has published his email address on this forum. If necessary he could forward a message from you.

I do believe know others, such as Matt, have tried to contact you by email before as well..

BTW, sorry to be pedantic, but that was not a ban. Banned users can not post at all.

Glad I pointed out some methods then. Remember that doing so is part of the agreement that ryanj came up with.

At that point, the officer crossed the line and made it personal. But that's not what happened here.

No officer should do that. That would be crossing another line. Again, however, that's not what happened here. If I really had that power, ryanj would not have been able to communicate with you directly to know of your views.

And of course, the ability to review deleted and edited posts by logged in users has been part of this forum for a very long time.

Well, I am looking at http://openeuphoria.org/euweb.cgi?module=forum&action=deleted_message&id=124109 and http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/124091.wc

There's a post by you, http://openeuphoria.org/euweb.cgi?module=forum&action=deleted_message&id=124090 , with very similar content to what john1988 wrote.

Yes, with your very first post since ryanj's compromise, you've violated the agreement that ryanj came up with. Consider yourself warned.

I also find very discouraging the fact that you have not explicitly stated your agreement to ryanj's compromise or promised to abide by it (and neither has ryanj posted, acting as middleman, stated that he had received your agreement). I already have, but it takes two to tango. My agreement to abide by the deal is conditional on yours as well.

24. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 16, 2015
• 5448 views

That's good, however....

That's not part of the proposal. ryanj only said to use more diplomacy, but did not require that I cease moderator duties altogether.

You agree to ryanj's proposal and violate it in the same post. This is unacceptable.

I will compromise one step further, and let you have the last word on those issues in the above post that I quoted. Now we should both drop it (at least on the forum).

This is a very specific requirement... the only thing that we have that fits is rapideuphoria-develop@lists.sourceforge.net

Possibly, the admins could set up an admins AT openeuphoria dot org mailing list as well. I'll see if this can be looked into.

26. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 17, 2015
• 5418 views

Again, thank you for doing this.

Actually, we've been wanting something like this for some time now. If you could set this up for us, that'd be great!

28. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 19, 2015
• 5330 views

Can we please take this off the forum? I'm sure we all have more important things to do, like get 4.1 out the door or work on projects like Redy.

30. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 19, 2015
• 5376 views

Since you invited me to reply, I shall do so.

I do in fact have that information. Here it is. This information is provided as-is, with no warranty. As promised, I refrain from drawing any conclusions or opinions from this.

Last known ip address of john1988, circa 2014-04-22: [REDACTED]7.183

ip address of useless_, circa 2014-04-22: [REDACTED]7.183

current ip of useless_ : [REDACTED]0.202

ip address of katsmeow, circa 2009-04-02 (last date information is available before 2014-04-22): [REDACTED]9.3

current ip of katsmeow : [REDACTED]0.202

euphoric, if you have a response to this, please response outside of the forum...

32. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 20, 2015
• 5264 views

This would have some serious implications if it in fact happened, so I decided to investigate it.

I found no evidence of any deleted posts that had been signed (that is, with a line indicating the name of the user at the bottom of the post) with the text john1988. In fact, in the only deleted post owned by john1988, it was signed with a different name.

Editing a post that had already been deleted (or doing other things like changing the user account associated with a post) is something that even a normal admin of this website can not do. This requires a special level of access that is only available to four individuals: me, mattlewis, myself, jeremy, euphoric, and I.

Additionally, Jeremy has independent copies of forum posts and other database changes. So, to fool anything more than a casual investigation, a rogue admin would have to directly access Jeremy's systems and make changes to files on his system as well. My understanding is that Jeremy himself is the only person with legitimate access to the systems that have this information.

Thus, theoretically Jeremy is the only person with enough privileges to be able to pull this off undetected.

On the flip side of the coin, the number of individuals who could have potentionally spoofed the ip live appears to be unlimited. In addition to users present in the IRC channel, there is an IRC log of that day on this web site. So someone not present in the channel could still have enough information to spoof the ip address.

34. Re: Moderation

• Posted by katsmeow Jan 20, 2015
• 5285 views

It's not doing me any good either. Over the years it's made me very reluctant to share any more code.

Of course i can, but i do not see any change in the behavior during the last week of those who have it in their heart that they'd rather see me dead than ever post on Euphorum again. You don't understand, some have hated me since well before there was an openeuphoria, and they shall continue to. You say "stop complaining about being discriminated against", and i say "how about they stop discriminating against me?".

And just watch, i answered you in a level tone of voice, i mentioned no names, and i'll bet my answer gets deleted, and your question goes unanswered on this forum. And i did look in #Euphoria on irc to answer you privately before i posted here.

Kat

36. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 21, 2015
• 5194 views

I think this is a shame, but understandable. I think it would have been quite helpful to know what your specific responses to specific comments would have been.

I have seen that you have been on the receiving end from katsmeow before, therefore I would rate this statement of yours quite highly. From where I'm standing, you've been in the same position as the moderators and everyone else who has tried to mediate.

Most unfortunately, I feel that it is extremely unrealistic to be able to expect everyone to be able to handle things the way you do. (Conversely, if everyone did handle things the way you do, there's be no need for moderators in the first place!)

More saliently, the peace treaty you wrote was between katsmeow and myself. As you've seen, I'm actually the guy in the middle - the real "combatants" of this "battle" are other individuals ... who happen to be nonsignatories to the peace treaty.

I, without consulation, unilaterally agreed to the peace treaty because I believed that katsmeow's self-moderation, under the terms of your peace treaty, would have been enough pacify the others. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this is truly the case...

I don't think anyone has alleged that she was.

We share the same sentiments.

I feel it's best if such arguments, if they must be had, be done off of the forum.

Agreed. I think this holds true for all participants, including katsmeow herself. Bring up old and invalid arguments from the past to defend herself (such as here: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/126375.wc ) do nothing to help anyone move forward.

I did in fact set one up, but I was later asked by another admin to make those "private messages" public. I feel the current view is that everything that happens on this forum must be made public. There's virtually no support for a private messaging facility.

Actually, katsmeow had already privatedly emailed several of the admins prior to your coming up with the peace treaty.

I really wanted to respond to this, but based on the terms of the peace treaty, I can't. Speaking of which...

Well, let's see what you wrote:

Also, here's what I wrote in response:

Rather than simply agreeing to the terms, katsmeow actually withheld her agreement on her first post under that account since 2009 and continued to vent on this forum. In doing so she also violated the first rule of the CodeOfConduct : Be respectful.

I think this is normal. Differences in interpretation are bound to come up from time to time, and further agreements will need to be hashed out. That's just how the process works.

I already have. I ordered katsmeow to drop a topic, but then others brought it back up on this thread, and I allowed katsmeow to defend herself.

I do not. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it, but this is the first time that such a suggestion has been made. Also, I'm not sure how this would work. What are the nit-picky terms for neutral ground? Would katsmeow be allowed to ignore the CodeOfConduct when posting on this thread? Would I be released from my agreement to refrain from publicly stating my opinion on the john1988 matter?

I understand that there is a lot to folow and that you don't have enough time to keep up with everything, but I also feel that it is very important for you to speak up where the terms and conditions of the peace treaty itself are concerned. I really do hope you'll have another post addressing at least some of the concerns that both katsmeow and myself have raised over it.

Well, maybe you'll feel a little better to realize that it's been kept to a minimum (just myself and ryanj).

I'm of the view that the relevant name has already been dropped.

Maybe this is not entirely fair. A new identity also means not getting credit for past contributions.

I can't see or deal with everything, but I'll do my best to prevent this from happening to katsmeow regardless. I argue that any form of discrimination is a violation of the CodeOfConduct.

I support this, but I'm also of the view that simply following the terms of ryanj's peace treaty and obeying the CodeOfConduct should be enough.

The reason it wasn't deleted is because it was too vague to pinpoint a specific violation on.

If the identity of the individual(s) you speak about was clear, and the charges levelled against them were untrue, then deletion would have been an option. Using a level tone of voice and avoiding naming names would have been no protection.

If it helps, I'll offer to cover the losses from this bet.

I wish to point out that you do have the option of posting on this forum to ask to bring the conversation to irc. You also have the option of posting on this forum to bring about an email exchange directly.

Another possiblity would be contacting one of the admins (either on the forum or privately) for assistance in exchanging contact details like email addresses outside of the public view. I'm willing to unilaterally promote ryanj to the level of forum moderator or admin so he can facilitate this for you.

After doing so, a good practice might be to have the OP (in this case GE) write a followup post stating that the exchange had been taken privately and resolved there.

38. Re: Moderation

• Posted by ryanj Jan 21, 2015
• 5154 views

I probably should have, but i was suddenly swamped with work, and coming home after work every day to spend my remaining mental energy on programming projects. Oh well. Jimcbrown, you made some good points in response to my last post. It's good to see some improvements made to the website, and i'm glad katsmeow is back. At this point, i think we should consider this resolved and move on to talking about Euphoria 4.1.

40. Re: Moderation

• Posted by fizzpopsoft Jan 22, 2015
• 5116 views

Simply put,
if anyone constructs a post containing the "I said, you said" type, please don't hit the "post" button,
take the issue off forum if at all possible. Surely this self-moderation is not difficult!
Also, if someone has a problem with the local gun laws, wheelchair difficulties, the neighbors dog etc etc, sorry but it has nothing to do with Euphoria.
Whoever gets the last word in isn't necessarily the argument winner anyway, IMHO..
Speaking from 20+ years marriage experience ;)

42. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 22, 2015
• 5061 views

http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/126320.wc

Right now it isn't, but that is doable. Currently, the general public can see the links, but accessing them will just bring up an error page.

44. Re: Moderation

• Posted by katsmeow Jan 28, 2015
• 5011 views

I think no one is listening to us, Ekhnat0n. The interactions are more about control, not about improving Euphoria. Closest analog is the Cassandra curse.

Kat

46. Re: Moderation

• Posted by cargoan Jan 30, 2015
• 4888 views

+1

48. Re: Moderation

• Posted by katsmeow Jan 30, 2015
• 4861 views

And, i am again being threatened with censure on another thread.

It's a lost cause. There's no end to the wonderful reasons to not improve OE. The fallout of not even keeping up with other languages since the 1980's is widely accepted.

useless

50. Re: Moderation

• Posted by Ekhnat0n Jan 30, 2015
• 4849 views

@jimbrown:

I will do so, Jim, as I am CURRENTLY writing to katsmeow/useless on her private email ALREADY
BUT
I will leave myself as well, joining forces WITH her AGAINST "controlled environments",
just WEEKS after rejoining the community of Eu
if this is the way Open????Euphoria works.
I have found cooperative programmers in the Dutch Ubuntu(*nux) community already
in just 4 weeks after joining them.
The choice is to the community as a whole I suppose
So let's have a vote or poll
to decide what way to proceed

Antoine

BTW
What happened to
Good Faith
Collaborative
Concise and
O*P*E*N?????
In the rules of conduct???

52. Re: Moderation

• Posted by Ekhnat0n Jan 30, 2015
• 4940 views
• Last edited Jan 31, 2015

@jimbrown

I don't think I, for one, will EVER change my mind
on this matter AFTER 46 years of programming experience from CPM on till now
and creating an algorhythm in the days of Windows 3.11
that did exactly the same thing with TSR, Windows did in those days,
SINGLEHANDEDLY in 24 hrs in 86asm
(I called it MegaPod and still have the floppy of it)
after my 3rd almost death by asthma
like happened between sept 26 thru 28 2014
after the 5th time in my life
and found back THAT very Inspiration like in those days

BTW I am Dutch and back in the 15th and 16th Century
WAY UNDER 1,000,000 of us clog-wearing stubborn men
became world-leaders in almost any field
against the numeric overpowering cooperation
of France, Spain and The Commonwealth
AND conquered the seven seas as few as we were.
The ghost of the Flying Dutchman
is said to even now sail the oceans.
MAYBE even the Euphorian one

54. Re: Moderation

• Posted by GreenEuphorian Feb 03, 2015
• 4594 views
• Last edited Feb 04, 2015

Jim, I seriously believe that no one should be banned as such. Instead we could require that, once the forum categories/sections are implemented (as per current plans), people with weird posts be restricted to a FreeTalk section (unmoderated posts, off-topic posts, hilarious contents, cranks, etc).

By setting an option, each user will be given the choice to automatically filter out all posts belonging to that category. This way wveryone will be happy, hopefully. Serious programmers will no longer be disturbed by cranks.

Another solution could be a censorship system at the user's level: each user will be able to ban any given poster from his view. I may dislike a person's posts but this does not mean that they must be unacceptable to everyone. If I get to filter them out at the individual level, this would instantly solve the problem.

Cheers,

Green Euphorian

56. Re: Moderation

• Posted by katsmeow Feb 03, 2015
• 4599 views

This morning i sent email to Tom, ChrisB, and others, concerning something about moderation that i'd rather not discuss in public. What is a proper waiting time for a reply? Can someone put the proper wait time on the "Contact Admin" page, and button to it in the forum somewhere? Thanks.

Kat

58. Re: Moderation

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Feb 04, 2015
• 4544 views

I guess I'm just nostalgic for the old listserv days. Also, this place hasn't usually been terribly high volume, so a single stream of messages has worked well enough, from my point of view. If a lot of people really want to go that route, I'll go along.

Matt

60. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Mar 01, 2015
• 4209 views

I have made edits and deletions to the thread at http://openeuphoria.org/forum/127205.wc consistent with the CodeOfConduct policy.

62. Re: http.e feature

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jul 15, 2016
• 2991 views

In response to posted by eukat on Mar 07, 2014 12:42:51,

object has_data = sock:select(sock, {}, {}, timeout) 
if (length(has_data[1]) > 2) and equal(has_data[1][2],1) then 
   object data = sock:receive(sock, 0) 

object has_data = sock:select(sock, {}, {}, 0,0) 
if (length(has_data[1]) > 2) and not equal(has_data[1][2],1) -- if not readable 
  then 
       task_yield() 
       -- pgm flow then falls to the bottom of while time()... 
  else 
       object data = sock:receive(sock,0) 

You are still using a timeout, you just changed it from 15 milliseconds to zero milliseconds. It does make a certain amount of sense to do this so that if a 3rd party library uses a very long timeout in its http request, other tasks aren't held up for unreasonable periods of time. But a bad 3rd party library can do so anyways simply by calling select() directly on a socket. Once multithread support is implemented, this issue (and tasks generally) should become irrelevant.

Also, a timeout of zero will busy loop (using 100% cpu) on single task programs. Ideally, we'd fix the select machine func itself to be task aware and do the right thing depending on the # of tasks, but that's a huge change. Alternatively, we could implement a new builtin - get_num_of_waiting_tasks() or something, then execute_request() could decide if it should wait by yeilding to other tasks or if it should tell select() to wait.

I think this doesn't get most of the error cases. We might try to receive data if there's an error. This is better:

if (length(has_data[1]) > 2) and equal(has_data[1][2],1) 
  then 
       object data = sock:receive(sock,0) 
       ... 
  else -- if not readable 
       task_yield() 
       -- pgm flow then falls to the bottom of while time()... 

It did not all happen in a single day or two. Your "responsibility" ended after you quit the dev team. If you had never been parted from the dev team (or if you had later rejoined) the "responsibility" (the ability to directly edit this file I guess) would be yours right now.

This happens all the time in FOSS. It happens quite often in commercial software as well.

You are doing it wrong as well.

64. Re: Moderation

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jul 15, 2016
• 3123 views

In response to http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/130049.wc :

There is now an appearance that this is indeed the case. (Though I secretly harbor different suspicions.)

andi49 last logged in at Jul 12, 2016 18:22:58 EDT (before any responses to his post were made).

However, he appears to be reading posts from another forum account, as I received an email from his registered email address asking to remove his account.

One thing I've noticed with the email validation is that, when the new forum went up back in 2008, there were a lot of accounts with fake email addresses created. I haven't counted, but it feels like we have had far more forum accounts back then than we did participants in the Topica email list.

Some of these accounts became very active participants. Many of the later performed actions which today would violate the CodeOfConduct.

Adopting and enforcing the CodeOfConduct got rid of the worst violators though, and adopting the current email validation system also stopped most of those fake forum accounts. The owner of which made no attempt to reregister them, except for a small handful.

Do you know what really caused the forum to go quiet? When I contacted one of these accounts and asked the owner about the owner's real identity. Suddenly forum activity dropped. It's stayed low ever since.

While I agree with the sentiment that it'd be great to have more users join this forum, if I had to choose I'd pick the small, low-volume/low-activity forum over a large and noisy forum that was mostly full of insults, personal attacks, and other messages of the same type.

I feel that andi49's account has fit into a certain pattern here - a friendly and helpful user who at first posts useful information, then goes on to post some minor controversial stuff/minor criticisms and ignores the responses, then goes on to an uncharacteristic post majorly insulting someone. This isn't the first time that something like this has happened, but it appears that these attacks are getting more and more elaborate.

However, they are also coming in more infrequently. I imagine it's getting harder to do these kind of things on this forum. So I think we should stay the course - the evidence suggests that the current approach to this kind of behavior is indeed working.

66. Re: The Future of Euphoria

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Apr 09, 2017
• 2446 views
• Last edited Apr 10, 2017

What value do you think you add to the forum with your off-topic posts?

(Edited by jimcbrown: Following CodeOfConduct rule: Be Respectful.)