Seems simple:
- Pay your dues
- Treat people with the same respect that you would want them to accord you.
6 Likes
Oh JeezeâŚtrip thru the WayBack Machine.
So much warm fuzzies out thereâŚmake it stop⌠
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
You bring up some interesting points. People should be able to express what they think and not feel like they are doing anything wrong. It is not the place of the leadership to direct conversation but only to make sure it is done in a way that is not attacking the person but the idea.
In the past, instead of closing topics on the same subject, they were merged into the open topic but now they are closed when the moderator feels it has been discussed enough or it is arguing against some policy. This is not a valid reason for closing a thread, IMO, it may be cause to merge a thread.
As it was said in the past, people are free to mute threads.
2 Likes
You werenât silenced for disagreeing, you were silenced for not following the well-established rules of this forum.
Legitimate criticism is fine, but thatâs not what you were doing. You were spamming your content because you werenât happy that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else and had to be warned as such. When the rules were enforced, opening another thread about how you should be allowed to break our rules on here isnât what a rational person would consider legitimate criticism.
Theyâre free to use an existing topic; if it develops enough before a mod can intervene merging it is appropriate, but generally the common closed topics are the âare we open yetâ which is just spamming the boards at this point given the plenty of existing threads on the matter. Most are closed only either if it hasnât had any unique content, or if itâs gone out of control.
Thatâs not a legitimate reason to spam the forum with repetitive content across threads, as it requires action on everyoneâs part to mute them for notifications, and drives down the legitimate content on this board.
I agree, spamming is not good. However, many times a new thread is opened because the other thread is not open any longer.
2 Likes
That hasnât been the case except when the reason for closing has been spam content for the new posts and threads going off the rails. Legitimate discussions donât have this issue, things like spamming âI should be allowed to break the rules, hereâs what happened and why I shouldnât have to follow themâ threads like what Raffi was posting are not legitimate discussions.
IF this is in reference to a policy change or promoting one, then it should be left open for discussion. Policy decisions and indeed rules are not written in stone but should be discussed by the membership. It may have been discussed in a previous thread and their might be a consensus on the policy, this doesnât mean that other ideas cannot be made later. There have been several threads that others may want to have input on but were not allowed because the thread was closed quickly. It gives the optics that you do not want the topic to be discussed.
For example: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/create-a-wiki-page-for-the-next-board-of-directors-meeting/70754
Just because it was being addressed internally does not mean that the members cannot discuss it.
1 Like
But it wasnât a policy change, it wasnât a discussion about rules, and thatâs the prompt for Raffiâs âstop the censorshipâ discussion. Heâs spammed the board, the mods, and this board because he doesnât like the fact that he broke our rules and action was taken.
Quick closes generally only happen when itâs a dupe (like this: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/update-on-opening-back/71049 ) or flat out spam (like this which he was posting the content of back-to-back in threads: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/through-consensus-we-decided-not-to-hear-you-complaint-james-henninsgon/70953 ); with regards to dupes, they can generally just go to the existing thread. Longer threads being closed are generally off the rails, just going in circles beating the same dead horse for days on end (rather than any new contribution to the discussion), or being necroâd after it died on its own with spam. None of that is contributing to any kind of legitimate discussion, itâs just pollution on a board that drowns out actual voices trying to contribute here.
And hence that thread isnât closed since thatâs a valid discussion that wasnât just spamming the board.
I agree⌠that dupe you linked to was handled well, IMO. Point them to the thread and close it.
However the thread https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/through-consensus-we-decided-not-to-hear-you-complaint-james-henninsgon/70953
Seems to be about not following policy or procedure. Perhaps, someone should have explained why it was following procedure instead of just closing the thread. It might point to needed clarity in the rules.
2 Likes
Closing the PPE thread is unacceptable and not required by the rules. Every time Iâve brought up this criticism, I have been silenced or the topic has been closed. I brought it up on your SOI thread and was silenced for doing so. You canât provide actual evidence of me spamming, all you can do is repeat that claim ad nauseam. You havenât linked to any examples. Thatâs not reasonable. While I think youâre being honest, I donât think repeating that is open or rational. Iâm happy be proven wrong about that. Maybe my view of what happened is warped and I really have spammed my view. Iâll note that I was speaking generally in this thread only as it relates to the topic before you added your off-topic replies trying to defend your actions specifically.
Thatâs not true. After you closed my topic, I went to the existing PPE thread and then you closed it because you personally thought the topic had been talked about enough.
Again, you can repeat this as much as you want, but you have yet to back it up with links.
This is not a duplicate. There is no other thread with the information about James breaking the rules.
There is a related thread about all the misconduct done by the board. If it is a duplicate, then of what thread? Is it this one that got closed and archived?
I donât see how you can define legitimate discussion in a way that excludes criticizing actions taking by the board and by moderators. What specifically was illegitimate about it. Your straw man of my argument, the idea that âI should be allowed to break the rules,â might be a dumb argument. The solution would be to ridicule such an argument, though, not close the discussion. And I donât think strawmanning my actual argument is reasonable at all. Challenge it. Confront it. Ridicule it. But donât ridicule the caricature of it that you created.
Draco, he had other existing threads already on the topic, and spamming Talk with his personal complaints about why he doesnât need to file the rules isnât a legitimate discussion.
Heâd opened multiple threads at that point, spammed threads both public and private, across multiple platforms. Itâs a textbook example of spamming a board.
If he wanted a legitimate discussion about policies and procedures thatâs one thing, but he simultaneously spammed the same content on discord, membersâ emails, the moderators, and multiple threads on talk.
Thatâs far from excellent behaviour by a member; and filing complaints because you donât like that you have to follow rules arenât sincere formal complaints, thatâs just a tantrum.
You spammed the threads with existing content from other threads, even admitted you werenât reading the threads you were posting in (despite having been earlier active in that conversation, and the spam content having been repeated multiple times tin that thread including just a few posts above you). I even quoted you every rule you were breaking at that point.
Bringing up the fact youâre mad you because you have to follow the rules as everyone else isnât criticism, itâs just throwing a tantrum.
I quoted you several times, linked threads here and in the discussion in my SOI. The fact you refuse to accept that you were spamming the board is part of the problem here, because you refuse to accept that you have to follow our rules.
Except every time weâve quoted the specific posts, the broken rules, etc you just do some mental gymnastics that somehow they donât apply to you. Dunning-Kruger abounds.
Give us an actual example of censorship that has happened under the current board and moderators. Youâve been spouting all this stuff off like youâre a martyr, when the behaviour has been that of a child that didnât get what they wanted.
My point in this thread was that counter to what youâve stated, it simply isnât there.
You were spamming and necroâing a thread with content that had been repeated ad-nausea. Thatâs not contributing to a discussion, thatâs just spamming the board. I even quoted you the rule about it when you complained in my SOI. Your post content was literally just the same quote from the county that had been repeated multiple times, and you couldnât even be bothered to read the handful of posts before yours to see that.
That is spamming the board, not contributing to a discussion.
(this is just on talk, let alone your spamming of emails and discord, as well as the spamming of flags because you simply disagree with the content)
You additionally continued to spam by evading the thread lock controls, using whatâs supposed to be a permission to edit a flagged post to bring it to standards to instead post more spam content.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/through-consensus-we-decided-not-to-hear-you-complaint-james-henninsgon/70953
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/silenced-by-the-board-and-jim/70932/1
you started with this post in which you were told this topic has already been beaten to death and nothing new was contributed: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/we-should-be-open/70676/12
In this thread you proceeded to spam it with content that was quite literally already repeated a few posts above yours: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/review?status=all&type=ReviewableFlaggedPost&username=raffi
Thatâs all Iâm going to bother with right now; this is just the immediate items on Talk, let alone your spamming the other venues.
Itâs dead Raffi; no amount of tantrum will vanish the fact you were breaking the rules, as quoted to you here: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/tails-hartnett-statement-of-intent-bod-2020-ama/70317/23?u=hon1nbo
This isnât an issue of censorship, itâs an issue of a member that refuses to understand that they were breaking posting rules, and rather than carry on decided to continue spamming the forum, filing complaints against those enforcing the rules just for the fact they were enforced, then when you didnât like the outcome continue to spam the board about how you didnât get your way.
This is far from the behaviour of an ideal member; itâs not even close to excellent behaviour.
Anyway Iâm done; thatâs all there is to say on the topic of censorship on talk, because it doesnât exist. I donât like that members post outrageous content like the chloronique threads but itâs their right to say it, and itâs a discussion within the confines of its thread. Personally if I tolerated censorship at all it would have been out the window, but we donât contrary to the belief of some.
An ideal member just follows the rules, doesnât harass people, and (if they can) contribute back. I donât think thereâs anymore to it.
1 Like
Ah ⌠I think I know what might be happening here. You think that because he brought up one thing that it leads back to all the other things. People like Raffi, sometimes think very specifically at one topic at a time. Raffi, let me know if I am way off base here. But this spread out into many separate topics from Raffiâs perceptive. There was the original topic of opening the space, and a separate topic of closing the thread/censorship, a separate topic of the formal complaint process not being followed. You grouped them all and assumed that all three of them are about trying to open the space, when in Raffiâs mind they are separate things and deserve separate conversations. Iâm sure it frustrated him when you linked it all back to opening of the space. This is not how many think.
Perhaps, if we separate them all out and handle each separately, it might prove fruitful.
2 Likes
No; the first round of spamming was the âwe should be openâ / spamming non-content posts such as quotes from the county that had already been repeated multiple times and not contributing to a thread,
The next rounds were the tantrum spam where he kept posting ad-nausea for his refusal to accept that his posts were blocked because he broke the rules, and then spammed the moderators and board as retaliation for the fact the rules were enforced.
Well I think this successfully got derailed from dracos original attempt at making a baited thread about âwhat kind of person pr should be pushing to have at the spaceâ
1 Like
Jim, if you silence someone, and they try and add new information somewhere else, you canât then accuse them of spamming.
All you have to show for your claims of spamming are two instances where I tried to have a conversation in one place, it got shut down in a matter of hours, then I tried to add something new in a separate place, and that got shut down.
Of the four threads you linked to, three are shut down, and the fourth is your SOI thread, where I got shut down with a two week silencing instead of having the thread shut down.
Again, thatâs just false. I accidentally repeated something that had been said earlier in that thread. Therefore close the thread? Where does it say that in the rules?
You continue to make this claim, but itâs not true. Iâve said it before, but I missed one in 100+ replies to the thread. So I accidentally repeated what someone said. Itâs unacceptable that you would close a thread on that basis.
Whose emails? The boardâs when I filed a complaint against you? So if I bring something up in Talk, I canât file a complaint about it? I disagree.
If the thread about your misconduct had not been closed an archived, there would not be the need to create a new thread about James breaking the rules. You canât silence someone, then when they try to speak again with new information, accuse them of spamming.
I replied once with info that had been said before. The other reply was in response to something in that thread. Do you honestly think thatâs spam? How many times did I post that info from the stay-at-home order? Wouldnât it have to be at least twice to be spamming?
I havenât flagged anything just because I disagree with it. And your assumption that I have disqualifies you from being a moderator.
Jim, your two examples fall under no definition of spam.
In your first example where I criticized you and the board, the thread was closed and archived for no apparent reason well before the discussion was over.
In your second example, you said âWe donât need yet another argument about this. We have this discussion in enough threads already.â And so I contributed to another thread, which you promptly closed.
Agreed. I think Jimâs first reply on here was clearly off-topic, so I flagged it as such because thatâs what the guidelines say to do.
Nobody cares.
6 Likes
Some people donât. And it shows.
Let me ask an orthogonal question. Could we categorize potential members by their usage profile - not how many days they attend, but why they join and why they stay? Personalities/persona are irrelevant IMO.
Should we be looking for:
- hobbyist members? This fits our educational charter, but many hobbyists seem to be in-and-out members who join and quit for specific projects. (Compare the total number of persons certified in specific AD groups vs. how many are of those are still active members.)
- small craft shop business members (i.e., âmom-&-popâ low volume sales or equivalent)? This might (or might not) promote customers instead of members but I suspect that type of user would bring a more consistent revenue stream because they always have projects.
- business partner members? Probably violates our educational charter, possibly consumes an undue share of resources, but is potentially a good revenue stream.
- other types I havenât considered?
In the perfect world we probably want a hobbyist member, who joins and continues to pay their dues whether they attend or not, takes/teaches some classes and behaves excellently in all manners. Iâm not convinced we can find enough of those unicorn members to meet our revenue requirements, and Iâm not sure we can change enough of the other types of members to fit that profile. So, if thatâs not possible, what type(s) of members should we be targeting?
2 Likes
How about the âIâm really interested in this social experiment and willing to donate money every month to be a part of itâ member? I suspect we have a few of these that only visit once or twice a month and even then for projects they could probably do at home or could just pay a professional.
1 Like