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
As soon as you define a set of rules there will be people trying to push the limits. No defined rules is actually a great way to keep the peace. People behave better when they don't have a clear understanding of the edges.
I thought we had them, we have the general rules stuck to the top, aside from that what the admins say goes.
Seems simple enough.
That is not simple and not enough. The rules are only for one side, the admins should try at least to follow some rules and we need to know what they are.
Obligatory Arrested Development clip.
I agree with @AnthonySmith's post and yeah, I guess in the end you can run it like that but I'm just stating I think it's the wrong methodology. Also, it is a two-way street. If we don't like it then there's nothing keeping us here. I mean I rarely return to LET now.
@jarland: While I do understand your opinion I'm more of the person "give me the data and I'll draw my own conclusions" type of guy (you already know me pretty well though so you already know this). Different people have different criteria for what they consider to be true data. It's also an issue in the academic industry as well (as bad as democrats and republicans citing their own research that only supports their own agenda), so that's why I can't take "he's an asshole" comments seriously. Obviously witness testimonials are reasonable sources but once the sources becomes second-hand, third, whatever it becomes one big game of telephone and has the opportunity to change it's meaning completely.
Ehh, from my actual experience there's only a select minority (seriously like two or three people) that I'd consider as people who try to "test the waters". Not understanding regulations or hiding them allows more room for outraged individuals to start up threads like this really. Everyone in their own mind think they're right, and instead of helping them understand/providing clear borders I feel like there would be more outraged members.
Oh also, I'm starting to suspect it's the cluster as well. I changed my signature yesterday and it came back today when I was typing that out. I fixed it again but we'll see how it pans out
@HalfEatenPie It's not an opinion that Ryan was targeted. It's not an opinion that Biloh said the links were allowed just not in a blatant advertisement which he agreed Ryan's was not. It's not an opinion that he tried to forcefully remove the link from Ryan's signature. It's not an opinion that Ryan had not acted out of line in any way in relation to the link in his signature by any stated guideline. Fact, fact, fact.
This. People need to stop thinking about what this site used to be or what it was trying to be and realise that today it's a business owned and operated by Colocrossing who will naturally favour to highlight their own brands or those which colo/rent from them.
It's really quite simple, put up with it and contribute or walk away. There is no middle ground. Despite all that has happened or not as the case may be, too many of you seem to think that will change. Well what have you seen so far in the many months since CC came along?
This kid of debate will still be running in a year if the site survives the continued loss of members.
Spot on, and, if we have clear rules, it will not even be a need for admins to act, the other users will chime in and explain the problem to the offender.
Just look at the reactions when someone posts the wrong offer. It would be the same when someone goes overboard.
No censorship at all can go to anarchy, but there must be a rule and a method in censorship, the "what the admin wants is law" will not work because of so many resentful people, once that the majority agreed with a set of rules, they are final and everything will be judged by that.
I do not mean I do not trust mpkossen, on the contrary, i say it again, he is a great choice, I just didnt like how things are going with vpsboard ppl. I do not agree with what they try to do, I do not agree on how it was handled either. A common ground can be found. And should not be hard either, I put up some common sense above (or at least what i think it is common sense), please lets end this madness.
I will agree even with no linking to other similar boards if it is not big news or strictly relevant to a legit discussion (not about the board, but about some technique, knowledge base, etc) rule, if this makes cc happy, but i still think it is useless, will not protect the traffic here, WHT and LET link to each other many times, didnt hurt anyone.
@jarland: Let me rephrase my words.
I'm not denying that those didn't happen. Those did happen and the information that was provided points to "Ryan was targeted" idea. The excuse given with the cluster feels very flimsy in terms of the signature contents being changed. I mean if the entire signature disappeared then I can blame it on the cluster but only the vpsBoard part disappeared? That's shady.
My issue was specifically with sentences like this:
That's the conclusion you came to after your own analysis. Yeah I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion but it reduces your credibility when you present your own analysis as 100% factual. It's just the presentation of the facts that (to me) I had an issue with. Of course I could have misunderstood and read it wrong in which case I apologize haha.
It was fact? Biloh stated he doesn't like Curtis. Biloh stated he added Ryan to a group to filter vpsboard links. Biloh administrates this forum based on his personal negative feelings toward individuals and targets other users not involved in that who pay the price for his personal feelings. Fact. Not opinion, not personal interpretation. F.A.C.T.
Cool it cowboy, no one got hurt.
We believe we have fixed the cluster issue so that the apparently multiple copies of the DB will no longer occur. Fingers crossed.
It's fact that he did state he didn't like Curtis because I saw the post. From what I hear from Ryan I can agree that he placed filtering on vpsboard links. I don't frequent LET that much to identify his moderation style so I can't comment on this, but my current information/data does suggest this.
Now this is the analysis from the presented data:
This does have supporting information, but it's not a fact (at least to me) yet.
Someone did get hurt. What was left of this community got hurt. Any confidence in your administration was irreparably damaged. Your ad revenue will reflect it one day, just not today. Every action has it's own consequences, whether or not you see them is of little relevance.
I sense that you are a bit of an extremist. It's interesting to watch your super-highs, and very lows. Just relax, take a step back, and breath.
For the final time, Ryanarp was put into the no-signature member type, then put back into the member type, but the cluster issue made it appear like it was switching back and forth and back and forth. Nothing more than that.
He was intentionally censored and then reversed, that's that. I agree that is the story. You can try to paint me any way you like, I don't give two fucks about your opinion of my personality. This situation happened and I am drawing it to light. Nothing more. So don't get your panties in a wad. What people do with the information is up to them, I just wanted to make sure they had the opportunity to parse it. Nothing more.
I'm going to lock this now because it appears everyone is on the same page -- and hopefully, as I mentioned before, the cluster issue with the apparent multiple database copies has been fixed.