Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
10th September 2010, 14:57 | #83 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
I disagree, we should always be fully responsible for our own actions and not try to put the blame on others. He should have not acted if he was knowingly breaking the rules. Patients is a virtue, there was no rush to act. Nobody was going to die if he waited for a mod to help out. Do you even know how long he waited before he acted? Let Doom9 figure it all out before you to try to absolve anyone of any responsiblity. Something went wrong here and that is clear. Both DS and N2 are good people, but both deserve to be held accountable for their own actions and not excused because he is a moderator or x264 developer. We cannot see what DS supposedly did or verify the severity of the situation... Only Doom9 can, so we need to stop trying to pass the buck and have faith Doom9 knows what is best for his board.
|
10th September 2010, 15:11 | #84 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
that's not the point. i meant, if there were more mods available the situation would have been different.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
10th September 2010, 18:07 | #90 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
BTW it is not up to me to hold anyone accountable for their actions, but for doom9 and the people he put in charge (In fact I believe it was you who said something very similar to that in another post) Hopefully Doom9's changes will prevent such situations from happening again. I always recommend this board to people who are trying to learn more about video editing and compression, so I really don't want to see this resource disappear. Last edited by HJRodrigo; 10th September 2010 at 18:24. Reason: Reponding to Sharktooth |
|
10th September 2010, 18:16 | #91 | Link | |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
The actions I'd like to see DS held accountable for are the vile attacks emanating from his forum. Do they not bother you, or do you think that is all just fine and dandy?
Quote:
With all due respects, just go away back to your utopia Doom10. BTW, you haven't claimed your free license. I'll hold the offer open for you, don't worry. Last edited by Guest; 10th September 2010 at 18:19. |
|
10th September 2010, 18:43 | #92 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
If people are making vile attacks about you on DS' Forums, then ask DS to hold them accountable. Surely you don't blame DS for what is comming out of the mouths of others. It would be like me blaming you for anything bad people are saying about DS. BTW I think anyone speaky vilely ( <---is that even a word? LOL) about anyone else is wrong. I do not support such actions. Last edited by HJRodrigo; 10th September 2010 at 18:48. |
|
10th September 2010, 18:53 | #93 | Link | |||
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Quote:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...42#post1433142 It's not your place to cross-examine me here on this (especially since you are still a Doom9 noob). Quote:
Quote:
Let's be clear... I'm looking for a win-win resolution to this affair. DS is looking for a win-lose resolution. He has pushed all his chips in. Let them fall where they may. Last edited by Guest; 10th September 2010 at 19:03. |
|||
10th September 2010, 19:20 | #94 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
You guys need to hook up with Sharktooth and learn to settle things like grown men. Last edited by HJRodrigo; 10th September 2010 at 20:17. |
||
10th September 2010, 19:27 | #96 | Link | ||
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm done with you. Bye. |
||
10th September 2010, 19:29 | #97 | Link |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
Another loser noob chimes in to throw more oil on troubled waters.
Just a little heads-up. I have to go run some errands so I may not be able to immediately defend myself from any attacks that accumulate in my absence. Don't worry, I'll be back later to address them, my immediate non-response should not be taken as acquiescence. Thank you for your understanding. Last edited by Guest; 10th September 2010 at 19:34. |
10th September 2010, 19:53 | #100 | Link | |
Architect
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
|
Community Court is now in session
If anyone read my ramblings, they would have seen at the end:
Quote:
I mentioned "the graveyard" in my ramblings; that should now be called "Court". What follows is a culmination of my previous ideas knitted together to form an elegant solution to the moderator-member relationship problems. Court definition The Court (hereafter called 'court') is the sub-forum where members or moderators who break forum rules can have their hearing to defend themselves. At the very least, these court cases are viewable by all members (not general public) and will serve as proof that the forum acknowledges these disputes between moderators and members. Court rules Court proceedings still abide by all forum rules except those that hinder constructive free speech (i.e. rules 17,3,11). Only super moderators/moderators can create threads/cases and only the administrator or a super moderator can close a case (giving a ruling if necessary). All super moderators are assumed to be objective/neutral, hence they are responsible for upholding court rules. Moderators are treated as police officers rather than judges. Police do their best to enforce the law, but they are only human and so sometimes make mistakes. Still, they are not above the law. Moderators also act as prosecutors when they charge/accuse a member of breaking a rule. Members act as prosecutors when they report/accuse a moderator of breaking a rule. The moderator in question cannot moderate the case, though related follow-up posts in the main forum should be brought into the case by the moderator (acting as prosecutor), or by super moderators if necessary. If members are prosecuting a moderator then related follow-up posts in the main forum should be brought into the case by other moderators or super moderators, and only established members of those posts be allowed to participate in the case proceedings. Violating a court rule results in a strike, which can be appealed only to the administrator through the appropriate channels. A rule 4 violation in court results in immediate suspension, thus forfeiting the right to participate in the case proceedings. It is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the court by ensuring all parties respect each other at all times. Court usage If a member breaks a forum rule then the member's post is moved into a new court case with case/thread title: moderator name v. member name : (rule numbers violated) Title of original thread It works the other way around as well. Members can report, (citing rule numbers violated) to a super moderator, a moderator's posts that are in violation of the moderator/forum rules. The super moderator should then create a case in court (with title member name v. moderator name ...) containing the moderator's posts and the reports made by those members. If many members report a moderator's post (or related posts) to super moderators then those super moderators can allow only some of those members (established members) to participate in the case to prosecute the moderator. If a member's violating post is the first post of a thread, then the whole thread should be thrown in court, else the single post is thrown. In place of the original post, there should only be a link to the post in court (displayed as moderator name v. member name : (rule numbers violated) (or member name v. moderator name : (rule numbers violated) if the moderator's post is being challenged)). Violating posts (and follow-on discussions) after the first violating post should also be thrown into the same court case as long as the off-topic issue is the same. Members whose posts were thrown into a case are entitled to participate in the case proceedings. The owner of the first post (i.e. the accused) is entitled to a "lawyer"/member as an additional representative at the owner's request, but only if the lawyer voluntarily wants/requests to participate in the proceedings. Other members may request participation in the proceedings, but they will only be allowed to do so at the discretion of any available super moderator. These "invited" members are essentially those whom the super moderator considers to be established members. The rest of the proceedings is intended for all parties to reach an agreement by debating the issue frankly without rules 17,3,11 in the way. The debate could be, essentially, one party tries to prove the correctness of their statements and the other party verifies the proof until satisfied. The debate could also be completely different. Such as, moderator claims rule 3 violation, member counter-claims mod-rule 8 plus rules 3,11 violations. Still, the goal is for the accused to have a forum (a thread actually) to (constructively) speak freely in order to show they were wrongfully accused. Court case outcomes If the accused forfeits the right to participate in the hearing, within a reasonable amount of time or within a reasonable number of their new forum posts, whichever comes first, then the moderator's actions (or member's report) stand and the case against that member (or moderator) is resolved. If there is mutual agreement, either by the accused explicitly accepting the moderator's actions (or member's report) or by the moderator (or member) explicitly agreeing to undo those actions unconditionally, then the case against that member (or moderator) is resolved. If no agreement can be reached then the moderator's actions stand until the administrator or a super moderator gives a ruling and closes the case. Once a case is resolved and closed, a super moderator performs any actions necessary to rectify the matter. All rulings can be appealed only to the administrator, who will then give a final ruling on the matter. Prevention better than court In the real world, police officers can inquire (interrogate?) and warn individuals without charging them, so there is no reason to go to court because no action was taken against the individual (other than harassment?). How can moderators do the same? If a warning is given in the thread and no follow-up discussion ensues then there is no problem. If, however, a follow-up discussion ensues or the moderator makes an inquiry (which of course results in a discussion) then perhaps that discussion should be taken out of the main forum and placed into it's own thread in a sub-forum called "Inquires". The Inquires sub-forum could have similar rules as the court rules (relaxed rules 17,3,11, etc.) but no immediate suspension for rule 4 violation. However, any rules broken there must be enforced and the issue taken to court. Comments Note that under this contrived System of Justice the administrator is still head judge and head law-maker, which is a recipe for dictatorship (that may be appropriate for dystopian societies, which this community is not imho). So good faith is assumed in the administrator. Details of this contrived justice system require a lot more thought to ideally (though may not be possible) ensure all possibilities are covered and no contradictions exists. This may all seem overly complicated, but essentially you could have: Administrator (head judge, head law-maker) -> Super Moderators (jugdes; these are your true employees in the workplace analogy, so choose them wisely; also, judges must not do police/prosecutor work (mod-rule 8)) -> Moderators (police) ~ community members (citizens) The overall result being a much higher level of transparency and accountability, in relation to administration of justice, than currently exists on this forum. The ultimate goal being maximization of transparency and accountability within constraints imposed by rules of this forum. Last edited by Bi11; 14th September 2010 at 20:20. Reason: moderator==police==prosecutor; upholding court rules; case outcomes; member reports==prosecute |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|