New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Should LET users be allowed to discuss policies on LET?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Pretty much. What I wanted to clarify was that this group was intentionally made to filter this content on users that he didn't even want to talk to about it. All that programming to undermine their ability to post content instead of a polite request. Then he kept saying "cluster error" and ignoring requests for clarification of the purpose or the acknowledgement of said user group. That's all out in the open now, but yeah that's all I really wanted to see. Just some clarification. Didn't know id have to throw a childish fit to get it, but I don't regret doing it.
Heres what's left to say...
Lets stop.
Well LET has become a place of dictatorship now. A community shall not be owned by a business. Or it will cause "cluster errors"
.
Community means a free speech, no censoring. Or is this LETCTA now(as from ACTA)?
This is/was a cluster issue.
My sig disappeared too. I did have to enter it again (looks like I have to enter it on each node).
Sad that we are at a state that even technical problems grow to suspicious facts.
And yes I do not like the fact that some links are not allowsed due to personal reasons.
@jbiloh you will be stuck with this forever, with the conspiracy theories I mean, it did not start now it started when you took over in total secrecy over the website, so basically the only way you can deal with it is to get used to it, the more you are trying to act like an honest person, the more people will blame you.
You are obviously a person that likes to work behind the scenes (see the takeover), and well that is not exactly bad, but trying to say you are not, well... I think that is the most annoying part.
No conspiracy here. Just censorship.
Thanks @mpkossen for working on getting things worked out with my account.
I'll chip in my side of the story to add to the confusion ;-)
I've asked Jon about links to other forums (competing or not) and the policy is (and always has been AFAIK) that links are fine as long as they are in the context of the conversation. Posting links with the sole purpose to drive traffic away is not and has not been allowed. We can call this censorship but I think it's a normal forum rule: if we were to paste LET links all over WHT they'd stop us as well (and probably ban us with that). In day-to-day usage of this site I cannot imagine anybody having problems with that.
There have been various issues in the past between MannDude and Jon about vpsBoard links. I don't know the details of it, but I know there's a history. I believe Jon noticed MannDude posting links again and he wanted to remove the vpsBoard link from MannDude's signature. Because MannDude would still have been able to put it back, a new forum group was created to prevent him from editing his signature. I don't know why Ryan was added, but he appears to be in that group.
To add to this whole mess, there are some sync issues where things like groups and roles don't really stick when you change them. It took three days for my Administrator role to kick in properly. I assume this has also been the case with the groups, which made/makes everything even more confusing. The issues are being looked at (it could be anything from the DB sync to memcached) and will hopefully be resolved soon. I have frequent contact with Jon and Alex and they're really focused on fixing this.
So, the status right now is as follows: MannDude is banned (don't know for how long yet, have to ask Jon), I'm trying to get Ryan back in a normal group and links to vpsBoard are allowed in the context of a conversation. How's that for transparency, @jarland ;-)
Also: if anybody every has any issues (or doubts or questions), please do not hesitate to contact me! I'm here, so are @spirit and @jcaleb and @jbiloh. We're here to help you and we're open to conversation. Honestly, we're just trying to keep this a fun place where everybody can talk about our beloved low-end VPS and other stuff.
And as a final note I'd like to thank everybody for your patience while the cluster issues are resolved. We all don't like these issues but in the end it'll be for the better.
From a business perspective I kinda understand Jon, if i were running a website i'd also stop people from linking to competing websites. However from a community perspective it's only a small way from "banning competing VPS forums" to "banning competing VPS providers".
I'd feel a bit more comfortable if the policies were laid out somewhere for us to review, or at the very least discuss and identify potential problem scenarios. I think the reason some members have been making a stink is that they feel things are happening arbitrarily, without a consistent reason. If there is a public policy list to point to, things get significantly clearer.
Even if you call jarland here, I must say I do not agree. Driving traffic away means that people will click them. If they click them, then they are relevant for those people, it is not like they use an exploit to open pop-ups with vpsboard and whatnot.
No, I still call this censorship, people should be able to have signatures where to post whatever links they find relevant, be it in the context or not. They cant edit signatures to match the context of their posts, can they ?
What I agree with is a simple rule, like, signatures cannot be more than one line long, use normal characters and no flash and fancy colors to disturb the theme. They should be allowed to post whatever links in the signatures, as long as those fit so a priority ranking will emerge, problem solved.
Fair enough, I forgot to add that: a links in signature, like @ryanarp has, is allowed AFAIK. Maybe @jbiloh can clear that up for us.
Good points, by the way, Mao :-)
There's always the feedback and suggestions thread for any issues. I'll be working on updates rules and guidelines soon. We'll discuss them internally and maybe have you guys shoot as it as well (I haven't discussed this with the others yet, it's just my idea).
Please point me out if I am wrong, I have already mentioned this. I just never got a answer. From what I can tell there was never any blatant advertising by Manndude except in signature, and when his signature was removed he may have added it to his posts a few times in question of why his signature kept getting edited. I don't exactly feel that he did anything different than what we are allowed to do. However due to the censorship or filtering it caused him to speak out about the issue. As well as it alarmed others of the issue. If the website was mentioned during that buffaloed thread it was because the entire thread was 100% about the other site in question and this was started by @CVPS_Chris. So what exactly was the reason for the ban for again? @manndude wouldn't have been posting on this forum if it wasn't for it being extremely on topic for him to be a part of the conversation.
I understand the deleting of links when the website is a non-community business site: example: Ryan posts an article on the Catalyst blog about a new Catalyst feature . Jarland comes along and spams promotional code links to HostGator in the comments. Jarland's HostGator links should be deleted.
If you're running a community site like a forum and your users can be easily lured away simply by links being placed in a post to a forum that has a similar focus (and after clicking on the links and visiting your competitor's forum the users decide to participate there instead of on your site) it means you don't have enough to offer and you should work on making your site more "sticky" so your users won't want to go elsewhere.
edit:
I don't see Humza in that list. Is he still an admin?
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that LET is just a community site. In fact it was @SysAdmin who said here:
LET is a business asset for CC and they are treating it as such.
+1 Maounique
also removing links will hurt only post context, only thing you can do is nofollow links and everything else is censorship.
Moderating moderators policies
No community here after LEA
This does not mean we cant take it back. While not in the ownership sense, we can reach a modus vivendi where the owner gets the add revenue and the content is created and policed by the community. The owner should not interfere in the editorial policy and nominating independent admins and mods is a very good step in the right direction.
As user I would be happy with:
1. Community voted mods and admins;
2. Minimal interference by the owners (mainly responding to false claims with arguments, not deletions);
3. A simple set of rules (a one liner like: no hate speech, no insults, no name calling, offers and offtopics set to sink after a day) and another regulating the signature.
I could also live with the owners having a higher share in the votes for admins and mods, for example, their vote will matter 10% of the total, or giving them special privileges to promote their services more often (but not for third parties, such as the people who rent from them).
For example, putting special offers of dedis from CC should be OK, but not favouring ppl renting from them. Even if CC would sell VPS, granting exceptions from the rule, letting them post a sticky with their current offer, adds some place, that is perfectly understandable, but not interfere in the editorial policy whenever a subject or the other is not palatable, whether they are right or wrong.
Hey guys, in almost all forums (non-technical and technical) I have signed on, there are rules that prohibit advertize competitive websites or forums. And, that is wright. IMHO, you can post from time to time a review or share with other members other websites that has similar content, but it is a whole different thing if you have signature just to advertize your own forum that you earn money from that. Any site that hosts ads or google ads IS business. Mandude or whoever owns vpsboard, earns money. It is not just a "simple open community", as long as he hosts advertising in it! So, more traffic to vpsboard from LET/LEB, means more revenue for Mandude or whoever owns vpsboard. If I was the owner of LEB/LET, I would completely remove any advertising or any try to send my readers to another site that is competitor. And, what a hypocrisy from them to say things about "censorship" or "dictatorship", when their only goal is to make posts or provocating threads to LET, just to push some more viewers to their website just to earn money from the ads.
P.S. I am not affiliated, friend or have any connection with CC or CVPS. I am a customer of CVPS as well as to 16 other hosters, and I have criticized CVPS as customer it the near past for problems I had with my boxes.
P.S.2: If you look alexa (I know, their statistics are not the most accurate, but still), almost 10% of their visitors was immediatelly before them to LET and another almost 2% was in LEB. 10% more visitors, 10% more earnings! Or not?
So question if there was a rule about this kind of thing, how come there was nothing said during this thread. http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/237516/#Comment_237516 .The one where 96MB was working on a forum and wanted to get feedback so that he would be able to fill in some of the gaps like no thank you button and what not way before VPSBoard. I would think that forum would have been more of a "threat " than a forum that didn't have the $7 limit. Yet I don't recall a big fuss or ban in that case.
Things I see wrong in this situation, from someone who has also ran a community:
@jbiloh has openly admitted in this thread, that he doesn't like MannDude. He went to the extent, to single out certain users who were linking to MannDude's website, and censor them out.
That's not how a community is run, especially one of this size. You don't get to say "I don't like this person, let's remove everything pertaining to their website because it competes with ours and we don't like it because he has it in his signature and occasionally links to relevant topics involving his website"
@jbiloh also insinuated that MannDude and vpsB were behind the attacks on LEB/T when it was taken over, in order to drive traffic to his website. False: MannDude was already planning on opening his website before the LEB/T attacks, with a premise of not being centered around the LowEnd mentality, the attacks were merely people who just didn't like how shady the entire website takeover went down.
For what was brought up about linking to LEB/T on WHT, and being banned - I highly doubt it. As long as the content is relevant, you can link to whatever you may like. You can have links to other forums in your signature, you can link to specific threads, etc. If I link to WHT in my signature here, and in threads, will I have my signature privileges removed for advertising? I highly doubt it because there is no grudge going on between Jon and WHT.
tl;dr: Don't involve personal hatred in the running of a community, or you're just going to drive that community away. Treat everyone equally, with respect. If that can't happen, limit yourself from the community.
His older signature stated something as "Why are you still reading this? Join to vpsboard". Would you tolerate this at your forums? Translate it into signature from some X-host at CatalystHost.com forum: "Cancel this Catalyst$hit and order X-host".
How would you feel about this at your own forum? It's not just blatant advertising but lack of courtesy I wouldn't tolerate on my own forums.
Alright so I don't really come to LET anymore except when Catalyst is mentioned.
With that said, I'll just give my two cents and be on my merry way.
tldr: Unicorns shoot out of my butt and I give a rambling lecture like an old man.
Disclaimer: I'm a moderator on vpsBoard and do have personal opinions of CC that aren't positive but I don't really go out publicly and spread it everywhere (yeah I did say it here but it was for background purposes). With that said, make your own decisions, only thing I can share is my experience and views.
As a staff member of a community, you have to always take the high road. Yes you do have the "power" to edit content, ban users, and whatnot but those should be tools you use to help a community grow, not a method you use to manipulate the community. Unless the content is illegal by local law (aka US Laws if the site is hosted in the US, etc.) it shouldn't be removed. You're a servant to each member of the community who contribute, and you're the bouncer to those who are here only looking to cause trouble. It's a thankless job but you accepted the responsibilities of it when you obtained the forum (it comes with benefits I'll admit but they're almost negligible in comparison to the amount of work you put in to it).
Now this is just my opinion and obviously you can have a different point of view, but this is what i consider important for any community. Seeing new staff members around (shout out to @jcaleb for getting moderator of LET! Congrats man!) is great and I will say I'm interested in seeing how LEB/LET will change with @mpkossen behind the wheels, but LET for me has lost it's appeal and hearing multiple stories from people getting their contents edited and such doesn't really make me want to come back.
From the limited understanding of the situation I think a handful of very vocal individuals just got the best of Jon and pushed him over the edge a bit. It's only natural because everyone do have their limits. I'm not saying I support them in this (while I do consider some of these individuals as close friends) the response is definitely something a community leader should not be... well... doing.
I understand you state that you're just the people who maintain the platform for the community to grow, but I don't see this being true (again from the information I'm presented with). The only way I can think of changing this opinion/view is the staff showing that they're committed to only being the "keepers" of the ground and now "administrators who ban due to emotions". I mean Joel/Chief wrote a part in the rules (paraphrasing) "if you're out of line/do something stupid you'll get called out for it". Let the community members handle the "trolls" (unless it gets really bad that you need to step in). The community will speak for itself.
Be reasonable. Be calm. Be logical. Emotions really do have to take a back seat when you're moderating. Right now I feel like LET is a virtual version of Amy's Baking Company episode of Kitchen Nightmare (watch the episode, it's a decent episode and you'll understand what I'm saying(whole episode here)) and it's infuriating. It needs to be fixed.
Also, I apologize but I'm going to go a little off-topic for a bit. People think there's this "vpsB vs LET" fight/brawl/piss battle going on. There really isn't. It's just small groups from each sides strongly vocalizing their opinions. I understand both sides (I really do), but because of this the links to vpsB are being removed? That's just escalating the situation and basically becomes a shitty version of brinksmanship. I don't play that game. You're all grown ass men (or women?), act like it. This is directed to EVERYONE (this includes certain staff members as well).
I know I came off rude and dickish, but I felt this was necessary. Personally I don't harbor any negative opinions about anyone specifically here, but as a group it seems we get a bit carried away. Feel free to criticize any point I make and help me understand from your perspective, because from this side of the wall that's all I can see.
Edit: I added another paragraph and rearranged my thoughts a bit.
I believe MannDude started several threads about his site here. @jbiloh was there and placed the ban. I was asleep around that time.
i even lost some threads/comments past 2-4 weeks. i am more inclined to believe it's technical issues than anything else.
So, regarding VPSboard, I thought it can be the place where the users rule it with a constitution of sorts. They already talk of advertising so, no, it would still be a business, just that will be held by the original owners, big deal. Not even that is certain, it can later be sold.
Once the money come, things go ugly, they can get ugly even without the money, but it is much more likely with money involved.
I do not see one board better than the other. CC took this one in secret, but we all know that is @Chief's fault, not theirs. And @Chief was acting at the command of BuyVM at least in a few cases, so, not really much better, besides not giving a s%%t except collecting the checks. I prefer CC if wee have to have a ruler, but I am ok just with extra advertising space for them and with the money from advertising going to them. That, and nothing more.
Of course, they can say, who the f%%k is Maounique to make demands. Well, I am one of the people here, they can, of course, ban me and many others, then it would mean there will be no alternative to VPSBoard, at least in this niche for us. It will be exactly what they try to avoid.
Jon and the gang can come out and say clearly in the open what they wish to do here. Put up some points and tell us, this is how we see it, a b and c are non-negotiable you bring your points and we see what can be done.
It can work in a nice, open field. We all agree CC has some extra rights for owning this and putting work into it, I think all that needs to be discussed is how far those rights can go before being considered unacceptable by the majority. A compromise can and should be reached, if we continue like this without an agreement things can only go for worse.
Of course, CC can say we dont need you, and that is fine with me and perhaps others, just need to know how we stand.
@Maounique : See your opinions have always been interesting to me because it usually contains a totally different point of view from mine but perfectly reasonable as well.
In terms of money I can give you specifics on how it's being distributed, but I'm assuming your issue is with the entire concept behind the involvement of funds/money, and I can respect that. It is reasonable to state that because you're paying for the bills you should have the right to do as you please, but I think of it more as a platform for people to speak and should remain as that. I wish I had a solution to your concerns but I can't think of anything off the top of my tired and overworked head right now.
To be perfectly honest, I really do wish we drafted a constitution or something and strictly based our regulations out of that. But I do feel that we're much more transparent than may forums out there and I feel that we're more approachable. We provided a direct breakdown on how the funding will be spent (it's in the advertisement discussion thread) and we do open threads for the community to discuss about new additions to the forums. We (the staff at vpsBoard) understand that we're basically public servants to the community we wish to foster. Now each person do have their own roles, but all of our goals and ideology are true. Of course this is from my perspective and I try actively to hear the complaints from unsatisfied members and find a compromise.
I can' honestly say the only person we banned was curtisg. Other banning/moderation actions were upon requests.
I have not read all 4 pages properly because it look a tad derailed but I think yes, discussing them is fine if done in a civilised manner without trying to push an ulterior motive when doing so.
But at the end of the day this is a commercial site so you also need to accept that what they say goes, they are not required to agree with you and if you dont like it to the point you cannot live with it then just request your account is closed and dont come back.
Frankly over the last xx years with the swapping of ownership, the hostrail attacks and the VPSboard split it has become clear to me that people simply cannot get along and without rules and moderation things just turn to shit, even those that are supposedly against censorship and moderation seem to have a line when it fits for them.
I have had my fair share of rants for sure but I can honestly say they come from a good place, others on the other hand seem to thrive on drama which frankly is just a negative thing that causes issues.
Group hug anyone?
Thanks for pointing that out, I just didn't see any of that yesterday when he got his 2 strikes.
Let's do that after we have a clear set of rules
Certainly I agree with some of the points. If it was out of control, he was right to get it under control. When it turned into "oops they found out I wasn't just going to target the out of control user" and due to a cluster error we were notified that, of all people, Ryan was targeted? That wasn't an accidental click. That was intentional. I challenge one person to show me where Ryan was out of control. The point is that this site is administrated with passionate hatred as a leading factor. We will never know when the next time will be that Biloh decides he has had enough of someone who hasn't done a damn thing. That in itself is the biggest "fuck you" to a community that ANYONE could give, and it came from the owner.
With that said, I'm over it. I'm just waiting to witness the next occurrence and the eventual fallout of the owner repeatedly telling us that we're no longer welcome here.