Quite ironic...

You should really list exactly it is who you are directing this at? All members in this thread, some...?

Pretty much agreed on all points in your post except this. Moderators actually "lead" nothing and no one. They are mostly censors, who act on the authority of the board administrator to enforce a set of rules/guidelines (as defined by the board administrator).

Having run and been involved in forums, I have been both a moderator and an admin and I've participated on a few of the major Linux and *BSD forums, but have not, to date, come across fair and unbiased staff - anywhere. I've seen a lot of good staff who try to be fair, but ultimately they are still biased. Citing myself as an example, in trying to do the right thing, I often did the wrong thing, cultural differences usually play a big part and while some brush off "intervention", there are other personalities which don't take it so well - and in trying to verse yourself politely and formally can actually cause more offence to some than if you took the informal approach.

You do see a lot of holier than thou, ivory tower dwellers among forums staff, who see it as their role to instruct others as to how to conduct themselves. They bring their ideals and values and "professionalism" to the table and expect others to conform.

I have also been privy to warnings and infractions dished out to certain members, of a forum I used to mod several years ago, who have had a target painted on them - and staff were intent on breaking that individual, either turning them into a "decent" member or driving them out - at the same time, the best pals/cronies, whatever you want to call them get a blind eye turned to their misdemeanours. And this happens it real life, it happens in the workplace, irrespective of how "professional" it all may be.

2 members found this post helpful.

Indeed...there you go. Not quite sure why someone who volunteered to be a moderator is taking exception to being told to lead by example; that should be self-evident.

And yes, the 'professional' environment you described DOES sound like a place for people to be mindless. Any workplace that has rules governing what you talk about certainly WOULD be a place for the mindless to flourish. No thoughts necessary...wear what you're told, sit where you're told, discuss what you're told and you'll be 'professional'.

Before you try casting me in a poor light, I'll remind you of the myriad of nasty PM's you've sent to me in the past, and the recent made-up infraction I was gifted.

Quite true, and I don't disagree. I meant it more along the lines of "if they want to see certain behaviors and be neutral, they should DISPLAY those behaviors".
+1 - agreed totally. You may notice who jefro is singling out here with his replies.

If you had posted this shortly after post #56, it might have been more credible. As it is, it looks like you've spent time thinking of an excuse.
But nobody's perfect, we've all made mistakes, done or said something we later regret. So let's all forget this mess. OK?

1 members found this post helpful.

I had the EXACT same thought. Seems the most likely, to me.

No reason to, if it rings true and applies then utilize it, if not then the rubbish bin is over ~~~~~>

Ok, so it's back to "professionalism" then... well played...

Funnily enough I got an email at work last week/month/year and the general consensus (albeit from exactly one person) was that "we need to..." and "we should...". I was not sure who this "we" was, as it certainly wasn't me and no one else has stepped forward to claim membership of this mysterious collective either...

I later realised that, roughly translated, it was in fact "you need to..." and "you should..." (of course I knew that from the start, but I choose to be stubborn and awkward and annoying and ignore this passive agressive bullshit).

(And while on that subject, I have to say that some of us in this thread need to...)

2 members found this post helpful.

cynwulf, I've read your threads for many years at FDN and DUF and others... I like your posts and similar to ondoho, that even applies to the ones that are snarky/snippy/pissy/pithy/grumpy etc... Free cynwulf, was once my signature on another thread. Passive aggressive people have one of the worst traits that is very destructive in any relationship, work, personal or other, on that we agree.

1 members found this post helpful.

Or off for the weekend.


So can you find one other post of mine that mirrors TB0ne's style other than that single post? Nope.

The point of the OP's original issue was more how LQ ought to use the technical forums. Do the members want posts to get out of hand? Have they ever seen instances where a quality question or even a newbie thred falls into a mess?

1 members found this post helpful.

This thread just keeps on giving, now doesn't it?

Ya know, I can't help but think that if members where this up-front in any other thread, a lot of misunderstandings would not have happened in the first place. Maybe there's some food for thought there; I would like to make a couple of points and have a question or two.

* "Professionalism" seems to have different meanings to different people. But yet, AFAICS, people in this thread are (for the most part) being respectful and particularly up-front and honest about their feelings on the matter.
* There seems to be a disconnect between "liking" someone's posts and being friendly, respectful, etc.
* There seems to be at least some disagreement between how we should respond to rude/aggressive/hostile posters.
* Some members think that because they have been at other forums that they know more than anyone else and seem to have trouble with people disagreeing with them. And don't feel they even could do any wrong, let alone ever have.

My thoughts about the above:

I do agree that unless a poster is giving reason to give a sharp response, that it's best to try and maintain a friendly and helpful attitude. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect members to act like "mindless drones" and walk on egg shells worrying about if they have been "professional" enough in their response(s). As I said before; I don't change how I respond just because I'm doing it online. I respond based on the question/topic as well as whatever other replies have been made.

When you're talking about someone who is well known to be helpful, knowledgeable and respectful, I think this must be taken into account along with their posting history and standing within LQ. I must also say that TB0ne among others here, I've found to be very helpful to both posters asking questions as well as the forum itself. And personally, I think it would be not only a net loss, but also a great shame if they were to decide to leave because they are being expected to be someone their not. As I was saying above, I'd rather be a real person, a real person has thoughts, feelings, etc. A "mindless drone" does not. I can't see how expecting people to be people they are not is going to work anywhere, let alone here.

I must also say that "liking" someone's posts and them being respectful for one thing, are not necessarily one of the same thing. This is where being objective comes into it, as someone who is truly objective is only going to being looking at the content of the post, but the intention and meaning behind it. I think what's missing for at least some members is, understanding the true meaning and intention behind the post. It's easy to just read the words and make a judgement, but personally I try and understand the meaning behind those same words BEFORE I judge the post(s).

I will say one more thing; when we are talking about someone who does not provide enough information in the first place, who then expects someone to somehow guess what the answer is, who is rude and hostile to boot, then there must be limits to this "being professional" approach. It's not reasonable IMHO to expect someone to still be as nice as pie under those conditions. Think about it, and let's say some bastard stole your irrigation timer from your front tap (this really did happen to me BTW - why I use it as an example of the point I'm trying to make) and you walked out there a caught them in the act;
Are you going to say "oh, thanks for STEALING MY property, can you kindly put it back now please?" or "You'd better put that back and get off the f***ing property or I'm going clobber you and then call the cops" ?
For me had I caught them in the act; it would be the latter, hands down.

jefro, given we all seem to have different meaning of "being professional", could you explain exactly what "being professional" actually means in practice?

As I'm really not too sure about that - honest question.

While that's all well and good, and I'm not trying to say people shouldn't follow the rules; when depending on the mod and/or members there's a different interpretation of those same "rules" or "guidelines" (??), then that's a lot easier said than done.

Maybe reddit has more clear "rules" than here. A lot of the other Linux forum rules for other sites that I've seen are what I'd consider to be the type of rules that unless you are a "mindless drone", well good luck having any proper debate for one thing there, as you'd probably be breaking those "rules" if you tried. For example, if I wrote "f***" on Linux Mint's forums, that would still be swearing, even though I've commented all but one letter of that word out. According to LM forum's "rules". So I'd hate to see the same situation happen here at LQ.

1 members found this post helpful.

I suggested to remove the phrase professional and use a more commonly understood term. Seems to be sticking point for some members.

ChuangTzu suggested examples that fit my notion of how a club member or fellow enthusiast might conduct their language. My thinking is that in the technical areas new and existing members tend to try to fix a problem or understand an issue. That issue in many ways becomes an instruction for others that may have the same issue. I've searched for answers only to find search engines pointing to any number of forums for answers. Wouldn't it be nice to have the topics in a form that goes from question to answer in some logical manner? I can name easily 100 members that write answers to questions with insightful and professional (dang that term again) answers. They pose correct questions to dig into the issue. They don't come across as an authoritarian or elitist nor do they subject the user to undo embarrassment. Everyone is born ignorant. WE all have different ways of learning.

Again, jefro...WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM???? I've asked you this several times in PM's, and you keep singling me out. Want some examples? I found at least seven with a brief search. Try again.
You do not dictate content, tone, or phrasing. If members want to discuss things and a thread grows from it, that's up to THEM, as long as the LQ Rules aren't broken. If you want to snap threads closed after an OP gets an answer, then what's stopping you?
The term isn't so much the issue, but how some choose to interpret it.
Section bolded for emphasis only. Yes, jefro...we all have different ways of learning. And we also all have different ways of COMMUNICATING, and one is no less valid than another. Trying to 'codify' things into accepted phrases only is pointless, and counter-intuitive. While YOU may not like how some folks phrase things, that interpretation is YOURS; others may find nothing wrong, and call it helpful/polite/accurate.

It is not up to you to determine what phrasing is 'acceptable'.

the current CoC and Meritocracy discussion does seem partly relevant to this thread.
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...3/#post5906635

^ well no, it wasn't really, but at the time i wrote it i felt very strongly about it.
__________________________________

However, I received another warning today, and i can't believe it - it's for a post from MAY 2018 that hasn't even received any new posts!

i am being warned for saying something unfriendly about jsbjsb001 (see, i'm trying really hard to spell it right): "Rude Reply" is the label.

and it's the same moderator again who seems to have taken a shine to me and has not once replied to this thread: rtmistler (3 of 5 warnings i received here are from him).

here's what i suspect happened:

• jsbjsb001 was bored, got annoyed with me over something (because they always do), but couldn't find anything current to accuse me of, so they started going through either their or my backlog, and found this.
• they swiftly pressed the report button, probably adding some lines about how i am being "unprofessional" or whatever
• the moderator in question does not take the time to read the thread or get a better picture of the situation. there's probably some thought process like "oh, it's another kali thread, and that disruptive element ondoho again", and in a knee-jerk reaction they send a pre-fabricated report, not even looking at the date
• btw, i believe this to be the objectionable part: "which brings us back to jsbjsb000's obnoxious criticism" - i am making my opinion about jsbjsb001 clear, no doubt about that, but i find it highly debatable whether this is "rude"... shouldn't mods err on the side of caution, rather than on on the side of knee-jerk reaction?

this is the post in question.
i wonder if rtmistler (and other mods) ever consider if they aren't being "led on" by users like jsbjsb001.

1 members found this post helpful.

And here we go again, I've barely even posted in the last week and ondoho still can't let go of his grudge against me. Well guess what ondoho ? I also got a warning just yesterday for "Rude reply" as well, which was for a post from 5 months ago if the date is correct. Just so you know, my warning was for this post, which was not even in response to yourself. I'd actually reported that post of yours months ago and had even forgotten all about it until I saw my warning.

The reason I reported you ondoho, was because it was pretty clear that you were deliberately defacing my username (a NUMBER OF TIMES in a NUMBER OF THREADS, not just one or two, I might add and NOT in a jovial manner either) because you didn't like some of my responses. That doesn't give you the right to antagonise, which is exactly what you were trying to do, so you can spin whatever story you like. I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror, as clearly it's never your fault in your mind - there's the problem.

BTW, I most certainly am reporting your post above, given it's clearly a personal attack. And you talk about me "harassing" you ? That says alot. So I guess it's ok for you to say whatever you like, but not others - except if you like them of course...

1 members found this post helpful.