issue "suddenly" resolved itself...

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks at a later date. to paraphrase from the US House.

Whatever new posting standards might be established, you should feel confident that they will not be any more permissive to long-time contributors then to newbies.

The thread will remain locked, simply because it now has over 1000 posts to it, and thus "it's time". That is normal moderator activity for when a thread grows that large. It is also a reasonable recourse for a thread which has had a high percentage of the most recent posts removed.

"Self-moderation" does and is working. But it only takes one "bad apple" to pollute the entire system. So leaving the boards unmoderated seems (to me) an invitation to pollute. For the record, I am not calling anyone here a "bad apple", I'm simply pointing out that what works today cannot be presumed to work in the future. I am referring specifically (if that's not an oxymoron) to a hypothetical future poster.

Indeed the project recently lost a user because I moderated their post calling another user a derogatory name. That's right, they left the project, without discussion, because I did not let them call people names. ...and now they are off to find other venues to spread their hatred and malcontentedness. ...and isn't that where they should be?

Moderators have no ability to suppress update to avatar or profile information, so I have no idea what's up there.

I apologize if you feel I treated you as "the enemy". What would your reaction be to someone that specifically reposts information you've already removed? And specifically posts content having nothing to do with R@h which has been specifically designed to test your resolve? The posting guidelines specifically state "no messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people". When content that has been removed by a moderator is posted again, that is very clearly going to "annoy and antagonize". And I am sorry you strongly object to me following through on the guideline that I stated about removing posts that have specific addresses in them, but I hope you will respect my consistency on the matter.

I don't see placing additional burdens on moderators to verify whether all individuals with a given name are now deceased, or whether a given address belongs to a public figure or not as being a viable solution. And I do not see any valid reasons for posting any information on that fringe of what could possibly be private. The original post was made for entertainment purposes, and if people don't groan at your jokes once and a while, then you're not trying hard enough. I'm simply asking that you entertain yourselves in other ways, as has been permitted since the inception of this project.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

We will never agree with you on the address issue.
The issues you quoted were addressed with common law.
You chose to impose your own will on that issue.
You have not yet been able to site any specific rule either by the school or by the project or the forum for removing the original posts.
Personally I see your actions as censorship.
No liability law or privacy law was ever violated with those posts.
All information was public information that you, me and anyone else could access and use. The information is available from a legitimate source, The NY Times.
The neighbor in question allowed his name to be published, his house to be photographed and a person to speak on his behalf. That is also quoted in the article. The Presidents name was also published in that article. His street name was published in that article. So your proclaimed privacy issue goes out the door. All the above information is publicly available to both print and online subscribers alike. It was agreed to by all parties involved. This information is available globally without restriction. So whats your issue?
There is no legal issue from what I can see since all parties agreed.

I will agree with you that attacks on any person should not be tolerated and should be removed immediately.
That I will agree with you on.

Thank you for a well thought out reply.

Of course, I never implied that a new contributor should be subject to a different set of posting standards. Merely, that as years-long volunteer donors, a moderator would have had numerous opportunities to "judge" said volunteer. As opposed to a volunteer who just joined yesterday. That years-long volunteer may have required constant moderator attention, or may have required virtually no moderator attention.

Whatever new posting standards might be established, you should feel confident that they will not be any more permissive to long-time contributors then to newbies.

I can understand, and agree with this.

The thread will remain locked, simply because it now has over 1000 posts to it, and thus "it's time". That is normal moderator activity for when a thread grows that large.

While I will agree with the statement, I will respectfully disagree with the underlying premise. It would be my contention that the moderator improperly removed a high percentage of the most recent posts.

It is also a reasonable recourse for a thread which has had a high percentage of the most recent posts removed.

I will agree.

"Self-moderation" does and is working. But it only takes one "bad apple" to pollute the entire system.

I suppose this is a legal decision that Dr. Baker and UW must make, as there are numerous legal benefits that accrue when a forum is left unmoderated.

So leaving the boards unmoderated seems (to me) an invitation to pollute.

Understood.

For the record, I am not calling anyone here a "bad apple", I'm simply pointing out that what works today cannot be presumed to work in the future. I am referring specifically (if that's not an oxymoron) to a hypothetical future poster.

I have no knowledge of the incident you are referring to, but if what you are claiming is accurate, it would seem to fit with my proposal as to the limited circumstances when a moderator should intervene. See below post for 4C:

4. Accept the increased legal liability that attaches with moderation, and treat forum posters as a valued volunteer donor, and allow them to self-moderate, and moderate only when there exists:

(a) incitement to commit a crime
(b) "imminent" danger to anothers health /safety
(c) use of "fighting words"
(d) libel / slander

If what you say is true, then "yes," I do believe that was the proper action for a moderator.

Indeed the project recently lost a user because I moderated their post calling another user a derogatory name. That's right, they left the project, without discussion, because I did not let them call people names. ...and now they are off to find other venues to spread their hatred and malcontentedness. ...and isn't that where they should be?

I updated my post to reflect that the issue, for whatever reason, resolved itself. Thank you for the clarification you provided.

Moderators have no ability to suppress update to avatar or profile information, so I have no idea what's up there.

I would prefer to categorize it as two reasonable people, having a reasonable disagreement. And, in circumstances which warrant it, there is a (legal) system which assists in resolving these disagreements.

I apologize if you feel I treated you as "the enemy".

My recollection, subject to being corrected (since the thread is locked, and inaccessible to me), is that I did not repost the same information that was removed. I am still not convinced that it is proper for a moderator to remove the contact information (professional, as per pubically available UW webpages, NOT residential) for Dr. Baker and UW administrators, when the intent was clearly to provide information as to whom to respectfully address a grievance to.

What would your reaction be to someone that specifically reposts information you've already removed?

Respectfully, I will disagree with you here as well. It is my contention that you were acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and as such, the only way to determine what was appropriate or not, pursuant to your interpretation of what your responsibilities are, was to post, and see what you deemed acceptable and what you deemed not acceptable.

Can't say I didn't warn you about the perils of getting into a slippery-slope disagreement. There is no way anyone can win that.

And I will also remind you that the name of the forum board is cafe rosetta, and the name of the thread was general chat here.

And specifically posts content having nothing to do with R@h which has been specifically designed to test your resolve?

That is your interpretation. Respectfully, I have a different interpretation. Attempting to determine the unwritten guidelines from a moderator who is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in my personal opinion, is not analogous to "annoy and antagonize".

You are certainly free to have a different opinion.

And, as mentioned previously, there is a (legal) system which exsists which can resolve these types of different opinions.

The posting guidelines specifically state "no messages intended to annoy or antagonize other people". When content that has been removed by a moderator is posted again, that is very clearly going to "annoy and antagonize".

I will respect you for doing what you believe to be is right.

And I am sorry you strongly object to me following through on the guideline that I stated about removing posts that have specific addresses in them, but I hope you will respect my consistency on the matter.

Again, I will point out, from a legal perspective, if a forum was unmoderated, none of this would matter. It only matters when a forum owner willfully decides to moderate. In that case, you can treat posters (in general, not necessarily any specific poster intended) as valued, and virtually none of this will become a burden to a moderator. Or, you can treat posters (in general, not necessarily any specific poster intended) as the enemy, in which case, "yes", now you will have to deal with all these burdens.

The choice to use moderators or not is up to Dr. Baker and UW. The choice to treat posters as valued or as enemies, is up to each individual moderator. The moderators control their own burden by the choice they make here.

I don't see placing additional burdens on moderators to verify whether all individuals with a given name are now deceased, or whether a given address belongs to a public figure or not as being a viable solution.

That is one opinion. Respectfully, the majority of recent posters to that particular forum thread have a different opinion. And they are using proper channels to address their grievances.

Respectfully, while you have your opinion, and it is superior by virtue of your moderation powers, it is not the final opinion. Dr. Baker, the UW Attorney General's Office, and should it become necessary, the Court system of the State of Washington have a superior opinion than the moderator.

And I do not see any valid reasons for posting any information on that fringe of what could possibly be private. The original post was made for entertainment purposes, and if people don't groan at your jokes once and a while, then you're not trying hard enough. I'm simply asking that you entertain yourselves in other ways, as has been permitted since the inception of this project.

For whatever its worth (this and $2.50 will get you on the NYC subway, so its really not worth anything), when people ask me if I'm willing to make a federal case out of something, there are times I answer "yes."

Previously, I have sued a New York State college for making what I believed to be improper decisions. And won.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

I haven't asked you to agree, I've simply asked (and forced) you to comply.

It is not up to me to sit down and decide each time something in posted whether some "credible source" exists that would support any assertion that a given piece of information is public. There may be equally credible sources asserting the opposite. Perhaps the NY Times is being sued for publishing that. Perhaps it was printed without permission. How am I to know?

I removed details of the address of that home, the university staff, and Dr. Baker and etc. not because of who they point to. Simply because that level of detail about ANYONE, dead/alive/public/private/famous/infamous has no reason to be posted here and COULD be private information and COULD lead to harassment of an individual (or vandalism of their grave site or whatever). That is criteria that's simple and enforceable. Everything else that has been suggested has a lot of room for interpretation (somehow you're going to trust my interpretation now?), and requires significant verification effort. Just link to the credible source of the information rather then reposting it. That way the post contains nothing that any of us questions the validity of posting.

So you see you can post all you like about how public the information is and it does not change my stance at all.

My "proclaimed" privacy issue is applied universally to all specific addresses, EMails, phone numbers, or other specific identifiers. I have followed that self-mandated criteria since 2006 when I became a moderator because I feel it complies with the spirit of the posting guidelines. I will not discover, deem credible, read and confirm details of everything that's posted on these boards just so you can amuse yourselves in moderated safety. If guidelines are established that require me to do so, without an automated means of doing so, I will withdraw from my role as moderator.

I hope we all understand each-other now. I understand that noone likes to have their posts removed. Please understand that I don't enjoy doing it. And I'm all for having the posting rules reviewed and revised, that is a healthy thing to do periodically. But, unless and until I receive a directive to the contrary, be advised that I will continue following my very clear and concise guideline for what content will be removed.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Azt hiszem, mindannyian tettük pozíció egyértelmű. Úgy tűnik, kis teret a kompromisszumra. Ahogy azt, kötelezni fogja a fellebbezések a hatóságoknak nagyobb, mint te. Ezt követően ad tájékoztatást Önnek. Sajnos, amint ügyvédek vehetnek részt, amit félsz a legjobban, a várható eredményről. Mivel az ő feladata, hogy megvédjen az egyetem a felelősség alól. És most, hogy lesz szükség terhet erőfeszítéseket a részét a moderátorok. És ha egyszer a rendetlenség hoztak létre, a saját bevallása szerint akkor egyszerűen sétával elérhető. Hogy kényelmes.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

We should... move our chats to email or message

What a wonderful idea!

What is this? You tired of us or something?
Looks like a "smart" remark to me.

okay. please take this conversation off this forum. It is not at all productive or relevant to our project.

"Please don't discuss our moderation policy on the forums. We aren't a social engineering project nor are we in the business of creating a perfectly fair system. So such discussions tend to be counterproductive and potentially incendiary. If you have a legitimate claim, send email to the address below.

This moderation policy is set by the Rosetta@home project. If you have comments about the policy, email dekim@u.washington.edu." -- from the "More info" link under the Rules list.


any issues, just email me but don't bug the moderators. They help R@h immensely.

I added a project specific forum rule.

"No contact information. Links to public contact information are okay."

But please keep in mind that any contact information that is not relevant or is counterproductive to our project may be removed.