@falemagn, you make some good points for tightening the moderation rules. I am not familiar with all the ins-and-outs of the Matt Parsons/Brendan/Bloodline cross identity expulsion.

I would have thought using more than one identity in forums is an act of bad faith and unless it was an accident should be a terminatable offence.

I do not believe this needs any special statement by AW - false identies, dual identities are not the same as anonymous ones (not actually the case if a user simply chooses not to reveal personal information on a public forum - they are not anonymous but use a constant handle - no duplicity invovled).

I did read "How is it possible that you saw AmigaOS4 running on an AOne more than one year ago, when in fact it first booted on an AmigaONE only few months ago?" in the original and I saw this as trolling at the time. Afterall it was based on a rather bizarre reading of Fleezy's statement and what is more it was plainly accusative.

We all have misreadings, no blame there, but why the accusation, except the assumption that Fleecy is a liar -- that in my books is another act of bad faith and trolling. It is that assumption within the so-called question that is a problem, I do not think this is very hard to understand.

Essential to civil conversation is taking people on at face-value and not using pre-concieved ideas to dispute with them.

In the recent past I have had a few harsh words with Billsey and Simlpex. And if the moderators had decided that this had crossed the lines of civility - I would have promptly apologised and reworded what I had to say - did this happen in the case you refer to?

The moderators have a role to play and they play it rather well as far as I am concerned. If they have erred, then suggest what the proper procedure should be, however, if the post you quote is proof of innocence, I have no trouble at all reading it the other way (trolling or near-trolling but decidedly uncivil).

Anyhow the moderators have already started thinking about a better form of discipline - I might ask them on behalf of those who see things differently, that once this graded punishment system is decided that they might consider getting into contact with blooodline//etc/etc and impose a reasonable timelimit before he can rejoin (it has probably blown out of all proportions by now so I place this as a request not a demand).

However, no-one should need to be told that multiple identitiues are not on (by the way it is a crime against civility - it is known as a subterfuge and is most frowned upon and universally unacceptable - the crimes against civility are dealt with by civility in this case exclusion).

Greg Schofield

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

Quote:

falemagn wrote: Quote: Please correct/mod/respond to this if it is wrong, I believe he responded to HIMSELF. Don't you find that odd? Where exactly? I don't see any posts from bloodline in the forums, and I can't search the news the same way I search the forums.

Ok, I apologize. I have made an error. It did not happen.
(I didn't pay enough attention, the first time I skimmed through the thread.)


BUT, if a person runs two identities, and others don't know/aren't aware, at some point, some person doing such a thing COULD start replying to themselves, which is odd.

@Fabio

Please do not drag my name into this.

Quote:

We have one example over all about this issue: DaveP has used 3 different accounts in the past, and he admitted doing it because he wanted to stir up troubles. Don't you find it at least hyronic, that someone who has a certain moderation power on this site doesn't get blamed and someone who's just a casual user does?

Firstly I never said I wanted to stir up trouble or that was the reason I did them, I apologised
if this /caused/ anyone any trouble.

Secondly these IDs were used sequentially. In fact ( edit ) I used
DaveW on ANN and DaveP on Amiga.org Digby on Moobunny. I used
to use just "Dave" but people kept spoofing as me. I dropped DaveW
when Wentlzer and I got mixed up. I have never used them all at the
same time apart from DaveW on ANN to join in the ANN spirit and
DaveP on Amiga.org and Miffy on here until it was renamed to DaveP
because DaveyD preferred the "serious sounding" nick. So what? I never used both on the same site.
If I got told off for it I would take my chips like a man.

Thirdly I never used them on AW I have ONE ID here that was deleted
when I left the site, a new one created as Miffy when I returned and RENAMED
to DaveP. I don't condone multiple nicks on the same site.

Finally I dont think the example is pertinent. I will correspond with you no more.

Dave.

Quote:

BUT, if a person runs two identities, and others don't know/aren't aware, at some point, some person doing such a thing COULD start replying to themselves, which is odd.

@Athiest

I like your prompt apology (thats the way to do things!). But I think you are being far too generous on multiple identities, regardless if they pose "Dorthy Dixiers" for themselves. It is the very definition of duplicity (two-faced).

I can understand someone forgetting their password and starting a new one (one dies the other lives, but not two together - ever!!!).

Greg Schofield

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

Is it moderated?

All my posts are shown, exactly as I wrote them, so no complain there. If the posts, you've moderated, are rants and other rubbish, then I think, you're doing a very good job.

I like visiting AmigaWorld, and I like the content, peoples posts and so.

Well, isn't newspapers section with letters from readers moderated too? You have to moderate to keep a decent level.

Sincerely
John Niclasen
Denmark.

Quote:

I would have thought using more than one identity in forums is an act of bad faith and unless it was an accident should be a terminatable offence. I do not believe this needs any special statement by AW -

Well, just like any other rules, if this has to be a rule then it has to be stated. You can't take anything for granted, specially because on something like this particular issue people can have much more different opinions than on other more common issues and self-evident bad habits, like insulting and things like those.

In any case, bloodline's account has been made on the 23rd, Drebben's account last day of use has been 23rd. I don't see any evidence of the fact that Matt would have continued posting with 2 accounts, but I see how Mike didn't wait a second to accuse Matt of being a troll and all that, without giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's evident Mike was holding old grudges against Matt - and Mike himself stated it! - and it's obvious that affected Mike's judgment of the issue.

Quote:

false identies, dual identities are not the same as anonymous ones (not actually the case if a user simply chooses not to reveal personal information on a public forum - they are not anonymous but use a constant handle - no duplicity invovled).

I don't see any difference in not showing a name, and showing a fake one: both names - the non-name and the fake-name - are unexistend names. Is it any different if you're called "anonymous" or "Ben Drebben", or even "Fabio Alemagna"? More importantly, do you have any ways to know whether someone else does the same here, seeing it's so easy to do it and there's no written rules that states you can't do it? As I said in my previous post, DaveP himself did it!

Quote:

I did read "How is it possible that you saw AmigaOS4 running on an AOne more than one year ago, when in fact it first booted on an AmigaONE only few months ago?" in the original and I saw this as trolling at the time. Afterall it was based on a rather bizarre reading of Fleezy's statement and what is more it was plainly accusative.

I don't want to get into a flame about this, but I really need to ask you something - feel free to reply about this via PM if you feel it's not case to do it here - how can you define it a "bizarre reading"? It was a pretty literal reading, as far as I can see. Fleecy literally stated he saw it running on an AOne.

Quote:

We all have misreadings, no blame there, but why the accusation, except the assumption that Fleecy is a liar -- that in my books is another act of bad faith and trolling. It is that assumption within the so-called question that is a problem, I do not think this is very hard to understand.

You know, when you are someone important, there are people who may like you and people who may not. People who do not, may sometimes ask you uncomfortable questions. Nonetheless, those questions have a ground of truth on which they are based, and even if uncomfortable, they are legit questions. Matt may hava had preconceptions about Fleecy, but this is none of anyone's business but Matt's. I mean, does the fact Matt thinks Fleecy is a liar subtract any value from the question he asked Fleecy? After all, Fleecy did state what Matt asked him about, so the question was legit, regardless of Matt's intentions. You cannot expect people to always praise, you have to expect and must accept people with different opinion than yours about the situation at hand, and be ready to cope with those opinions and their conseguences, otherwise the risk is of censuring, and you don't want that to happen, do you?

Quote:

Essential to civil conversation is taking people on at face-value and not using pre-concieved ideas to dispute with them.

Why not? I may have a preconceived idea, and still ask a legit question. It wasn't an accusation, mind you, Matt didn't say "you're a liar", Matt gave Fleecy the opportunity to explain and respond to Matt's question, so it was up to Fleecy to respond in a way which would have either showed him guilty of having been a liar or Matt of having been stupid in asking that question. Fleecy, via Mike's moderation, lost his opportunity to show the whole world that at least ONE of the accusations people make at him is FALSE. If he indeed thinks is right, if he indeed didn't lie and can prove it, then he lost a great opportunity.

I can't really understand how you can't see that.

Quote:

However, no-one should need to be told that multiple identitiues are not on (by the way it is a crime against civility - it is known as a subterfuge and is most frowned upon and universally unacceptable - the crimes against civility are dealt with by civility in this case exclusion).

Sorry? Being able to ask anonymous questions is a right granted by the USA constitution, for one! In any case, it's in no way a crime against civility. I'm amazed you can say such obviously mistaken things, I just hope you really believed in that, rather than making things up on purpose, and now you'll go get a better understanding of the matter.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Well, I wasn't aware of the multiple identity "problem" until now. But I have to ask - when should someone not have multiple identities?

On an aviation forum which I frequent, there are several people who have multiple identities, all used in fun. "They" argue amongst "themselves" and since most people know who they are, they are a constant source of amusement. The same could happen here and no one would complain.

It seems that action was taken in this case because multiple identities were used to bolster an argument or point of view. That usage of identities should be verboten by any standards and I have no quarrel with a "cease and desist" notice to the perpetrator. But it should be private, not in the public eye. That public humiliation would appear to be the basis for the complaint.

_________________
cheers
tony

Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php

@DaveP

I replied to you via PM: let's not pollute this place with our rantings.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Quote:

It seems that action was taken in this case because multiple identities were used to bolster an argument or point of view.

Eh, that's the thing, what you say didn't happen at all! I'm so sorry to read that people think something like that happened, really. Think of this: do you have any evidence that happened? No, you don't, and I know you don't because such evidence doesn't exist, as such a thing has never happened. What you are reporting now is just a song you heard singing by some moderators or other participants to this site, and in the end only one person can have spready the "rumour", and such person is to blame, whoever he is. I of course have my idea about who he is, but I'll let intelligent people draw their conclusions.

Quote:

That usage of identities should be verboten by any standards and I have no quarrel with a "cease and desist" notice to the perpetrator. But it should be private, not in the public eye.

I completely agree with all that.

Quote:

That public humiliation would appear to be the basis for the complaint.

Partly. The other part of the complaint is, as said, referred to the fact that such a thing never happened in the first place.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Quote:

Sorry? Being able to ask anonymous questions is a right granted by the USA constitution, for one! In any case, it's in no way a crime against civility. I'm amazed you can say such obviously mistaken things, I just hope you really believed in that, rather than making things up on purpose, and now you'll go get a better understanding of the matter.

@falemagn, it is good to see such a fulsome reply. On your statement above, well I won't say what I think of that tattered and abused document that the US has (not being a US citizen nor wanting to be), but a forum is a meeting, a meeting is parliamentary body which has rules of debate (thats by the law of my country).

The rules of debate are pretty straightforward and adapted to needs, but on the whole, is that an item of business is discussed without personal attacks which detract from what is being discussed. Slanderous, accusative statements without direct and included evidence is not allowed (and only then if they directly relate to what is being discussed), nor any extreme behaviour which departs from the item being discussed is normally tolerated.

The moderator in a meeting is a chair, I beleive this also holds in your country.

As for the reading of Fleecy comments I saw them to a reference of the A1 having been running for a year, not OS4, which even if he had made such a blunder the fact is that he has also told us step by step where A1 and OS4 have been going and after waiting many months to hear about it running on an A1, I found the question posed by "bloodline" very accusative indeed.

Why wasn't a reference made to the statement made? If Fleecy may have in the past "gilded the lilly" well the seriousness of that would still have to be judged in its own context. I have tried to follow things fairly carefully and just cannot find a point where I think I have been seriously misled by Fleecy (though he would probably admit many mistakes along the way - mistakes are of course the reserve of people actually doing things - you can easily not make any mistakes by doing nothing).

I do not mean this to justify any crimes by Fleecy (real or imagined) I am stating my opinion based on following statements overtime and simply not finding any evidence of the duplicity he is often charged with.

Let me take it the other way, let us suppose Fleecy and the whole of Amiga Inc is proved to be a bunch of crooks, so what? Hyperion is doing OS4, so unless they are also a bunch of crooks where is the harm.

I mean this seriously, I do not buy products because I beleive the business is honest (I could buy very few products in this day and age), I buy them because they serve a need. In the case of OS4-OS5 I like what I have seen so far, I like the direction, I like the A1 (I just bought one), and if it all falls apart at the last instance - well I have been burnt before - nothing new in that --- on the other hand if things succeed -- well that is a new world and I am getting closer to heavan.

I have nothing against AROS, MorphOS, Pegasos, but despite the flamewars I decided my choice was better for me and so far have nothing to regret (even paid for my Amiga Club membership after all was said about it being a rip-off, my judgement is that I am getting what I paid for and am quite happy - I joined this month by the way).

I know this is off the points you raised, but I beleive this also goes to why I feel so comfortable hear at AW and find its moderation, perhaps not perfect, but better than anything else out there.

I am the very definition of the happy camper -- bring out the snags, warm your feet for a little, tomorrow seems to be shaping up to be a pretty good day - all I have to do is wait a while and that will finally solve things one way or another.

Greg Schofield

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

@GregS

Well, seing you define my reply "fulsome", which is not really a pretty adjective, I hope you understand if I don't feel motivated in replying to you again, specially because you seem to have a viewpoint completely opposed to mine - which is ok in and by itself, but doesn't let us have a peaceful and constructive discussion.

So long,
Fabio Alemagna

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

@Falemagn:

There is a term used in show business, where a showman stands before an audience. The term is "shill," and it refers to a member of the show troupe's staff who sits among the audience members, posing as one of them. This practice is useful to magicians and others to trick the audience into believing that a suggestion or question from the audience was spontaneous, and unanticipated.

Instead, it's part of a script that the showmen have worked out ahead of time. While it may not be wrong to do this on a web forum per se, it is inappropriate to do this if it is done to feign independent support for a controversial position, or similar.

For example, if your messages had been posted with a third login profile created by Mr. Parsons, that would be very deceptive, indeed.

(Not that I'm suggesting that this is the case, you understand. But you knew that.)

_________________

@ Quixote

I understand your point of view, and I agree with you that it would be bad if something like that happened, but... did it happen?

I don't really think so.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Quote:

Well, seing you define my reply "fulsome", which is not really a pretty adjective,

@falemagn, we must be having a cultural difference here "fulsome" means at length, substantial and dare I say it "full". There is nothing derogerative intended nor I think in the way it is used downunder. I was praising your post for covering so much territory. In fact I choose the expression because I did not think I could address all that you raise.

If you look at my posts, which are often lengthy but hardly ever as full as they should be you will see I am the very last person that could use the word "fulsome" in an abusive way. Indeed if it is abusive my long-winded replies are more a target than any I have seen from you.

Actually I thought that:
Quote:

you seem to have a viewpoint completely opposed to mine

was pretty obvious, I cannot see why this should stop the issues being raised being worked through.

As I see the most useful discussions coming from honest opposition I cannot concede that we need either be non-peaceful nor non-constructive.

I apologise for any unintential offence given by my use of an "ugly" adjective.

Greg Schofield

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

Quote:

@falemagn, we must be having a cultural difference here "fulsome" means at length, substantial and dare I say it "full". There is nothing derogerative intended nor I think in the way it is used downunder. I was praising your post for covering so much territory. In fact I choose the expression because I did not think I could address all that you raise.

Well, Greg, both my own dictionary and www.dictionary.com refer to "fulsome" as a pretty bad adjective... I'm "just" Italian, and this was the first time I heard such an adjective, that's why I looked it up on the dictionary... But now I know what you meant, and I'm sorry to have misunderstood - although it surely wasn't my fault

As for the rest, as said our opinions are pretty much on the opposite sides of the fence, It's always nice to exchange point of views, but I must say that I don't agree with your view of the anonimity - if I understood well what you think about it - and more than stating I'm in disagreement with you, I'm afraid I cannot do. Let's just agree to disagree, after all we are talking about something that isn't really going to affect our lives in any way

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

@falemagn, no worries at all and no need whatsoever to apologise about the language thing, English is notoriously contradictory and illogical (plus it changes rapidly).

I saw your dictionary reference (out of interest) and reading the first entry I can see why you were offended. By the way the dictionary is right "fulsome" as a degorative adjective derives from the tactic of exagerating something to make it look absurd, unfortunately this linguistic trick uses quite ordinary words to achieve its effect (words which in another context have no such implications).

Your English as a second language is really very very good - don't apologise for a language which is just plain illogical. I will treat what else you have said with respect and withdraw.

Best of luck,
Greg

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia

As I write this comment, posting a response to your original note....I am on page 5 with some 95 comments in a single day.

That should be telling. In case it isn't, what it tells, is a lot of your site is devoted to the subject of censorship, instead of the subject of amiga. Your censors don't use a light hand, if they did, this wouldn't be the issue that it is.

Let me say whole heartedly, and I couldn't be any more frank.... the moderation is too heavy handed. People are afraid to post, and I think you are limiting yourself with the moderation, to being perceived as a biased site.

Here is my suggestion, leave moderation to banning illegal or vulgar comments only, and otherwise do not moderate at all.

I think you have always insulted your membership, and that includes me, by suggesting we cannot handle differences of opinion.

You know what, I'm not going to even try to pull out examples, because its not real world *actual* moderation that is the problem. The problem is the constant threats of moderation, which people are taking seriously. Your moderators may, in the end, be reluctant to actual pull the trigger and ban someone or delete their post, but they are not at all reluctant or shy about suggesting they will do so.

The perceived definition of trolling, around here, is not towing the official line. Period. By the way, the actual definition of trolling, is making a post with the intention of generating responses.

That is why, I never make a post that is not a troll post. My entire purpose in any post is to generate responses. Whats so horrible about that?

Thanks,
Robert

falemagn figured:Quote:

...Being able to ask anonymous questions is a right granted by the USA constitution, for one!

Actually, I haven't heard that before. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant rights, it protects them. Secondly, while the Constitution's Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to speak freely, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, it says nothing to my knowledge about doing so anonymously...

_________________

Quixote, I know you aren't a constitutional expert, but the Supreme court does say the constitution protects the right to anonymous speech under the first amendment... and reaffirmed this many times, most recently in MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

It may not use the word 'anonymous', but the Supreme Court has done a lot of interpreting over the years...and with good reason.

Certain types of speech require anonymity sp? to be effective... but anonymous speech rights don't trump private property rights. A webmaster can certainly ban it... but a state, for example, cannot make it illegal (except under the exceptions! of course)

If someone is outside the United States, I certainly don't expect them to care about our Supreme Court, but the reasoning of our Supreme Court is still valid. Anonymous speech has a place in society, and is not at all a bad thing, in and of itself.

Quote:

If someone is outside the United States, I certainly don't expect them to care about our Supreme Court, but the reasoning of our Supreme Court is still valid. Anonymous speech has a place in society, and is not at all a bad thing, in and of itself.

@RobertDupuy, many good rulings have come from America's Supreme court (I don't know how long I would depend on that ; )) And yes Anonymous speech has a very important place in society (all societies).

Private property rights, well I won't go into what I think of those (being an unreformed communist), but the point really is about what these forums are and I argue they are electronic meetings which are free to adopt any form that is seen as useful to its objectives.

Moderation/chairing is just fine, in keeping a whole site stable, civil and useful, in the cureent context of the Amiga Community it is essential as far as I am concerned.

Greg Schofield

_________________
Greg Schofield, Perth Australia