deskthority

In face of recent events the hot debate arises: How far should moderation go? Are moderators abusing their power?

In a less lurid way: I want to adress my question of what we want to be moderated here on DT because I recently stumbled upon a moderation worthy thread but guess this is a better place for any debate to be had about the meta "issues" than that old thread about a keyboard:

Shorle wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2022, 13:47

Spoiler:

*Necro*
I stumbled upon this thread and got my shovel because it portraits false info when googling the serial number
1390415 + IBM unless read up to post 6 of the thread: 1390415 / 1390413 is actually a Model M instead of a Model F like the title / google search suggests.
This is obviously in no way malicious but since our new mod team just formed and I don't know if this is stuff we as a community want to be moderated and this thread is the top result for the search on google portraying wrong information I suggest modifying the title and maybe the post to show correct info.
I initially opened a moderation request for this but don't know wether this is the right way for it for simimar threads and wether it's called for at all. So this is basically a starter for a discussion / the decision of our mods.

The main question being wether wrong / bad information should be moderated to portrait correct information or wether it is to be left untouched to slumber in the depths of the internet.

With framing like that, who needs a flamethrower?

As for your actual question, I wrote to the amigos about it. One of them is against the change, I’ll let speculation run wild as to who that Tipro enthusiast was, and I myself am mostly kinda sorta for it but don’t want to invite more work. So uh, this court is adjourned for a trip to the bar?

Seems a bit extreme if you ask me, but then again apparently DT was completely un-moderated recently (and it appears the discord still is) so what do I know.

How anxious do you feel when viewing the following image?



<takes notes on clipboard, before you even speak>

Perhaps a message can be inserted above with a disclaimer stating the correct serial number without altering the OP's original words.

As long as we aren't doing stupid nonsense like banning people for not being vaccinated like the orange forum does.

Muirium wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2022, 22:23

How anxious do you feel when viewing the following image?



<takes notes on clipboard, before you even speak>

Yup. If you go down the rabbit hole of "correcting" threads, there's no end. Additionally, while our moderators are super cool and wonderful beings, that doesn't mean that they have more knowledge on a particular subject than anyone else. Nor do they necessarily have the knowledge to say, "Shorle (just picking you because you're OP) is obviously right." Although that could be an assumption on my part. Is there a mod on staff that does know everything or even everything about keyboards? In either case, I have questions!

I think that if anyone wants to post in an 11 year old thread that, "Further research indicates X, based on Y source," that'd be more than enough.

Muirium wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2022, 15:52

With framing like that, who needs a flamethrower?

As for your actual question, I wrote to the amigos about it. One of them is against the change, I’ll let speculation run wild as to who that Tipro enthusiast was […]

Yes, who needs a flamethrower?

I detailed the reasons why I was (and still am) against a change to the post in my answer to Muiriums question:

kbdfr wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2022, 15:32

I would object to changing anything in the post, for three reasons.

• Reason one, posters own their posts. If at all, it would be for the poster himself to edit the post, but he was last active in october 2019 and may just not care anymore. Nothing to object to contacting him, of course.
• Reason two, the error is clearly indicated by the author of the OP in the last-but-one post of the thread. Anyone interested in the model would read such a short thread and find out.
• Reason three, the forum mod’s job is not to correct factual errors. That would be an endless endeavour

[link added to the quote to reflect which was the then-last-but-one post]

I would like to recall this old thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=16196
containing this historic post by webwit:

webwit wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2017, 20:15

Users own their own posts, not other people.

Aye. Moderation is ultimately the power to do things AGAINST the poster’s will. For example: kindly giving spammers manners and feeding them into the shredder. Aaaand actually that’s about it for us.

The best thing to do, by far, is to reach out to the original poster in this case and ask them to update their post. I know dick about IBM model numbers so I’m not the man for that. “Dude, someone says ur rong on the internet…” So how about DMing them some more? It’s not like every inactive user is necessarily doing a Soarer. That takes some dedication!

Speaking of the man himself: the tumult a year or two ago regarding reaching him for his IP is a cautionary example of how deeply many view the lines regarding ownership and privacy online, even here on a typically chill keyboard forum. Do Not Tread on Toes!

Starting to edit user posts can only end badly I assume. And in some threads, mods declaring something a fact and editing posts would .. not end well

For facts, we have the wiki, where inaccuracies can be corrected. And if they refer to old threads, the facts can be refuted by contributing to the thread. If I'm wrong, don't correct me to be right, people will start to think I know things.

mmm wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2022, 11:46

Starting to edit user posts can only end badly I assume. And in some threads, mods declaring something a fact and editing posts would .. not end well

That thread has become historic: "Yo, dude. Calm down. This isn't the Alps lube thread or anything!"

hellothere wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2022, 18:42

mmm wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2022, 11:46

Starting to edit user posts can only end badly I assume. And in some threads, mods declaring something a fact and editing posts would .. not end well

That thread has become historic: "Yo, dude. Calm down. This isn't the Alps lube thread or anything!"

I remember reading the waxboil thread and thinking I hadn't seen such a fustercluck of people arguing about such nonsense. I think the minute it really kicked off was when someone responded to someone else with "Wow don't you have better things to worry about like *climate change*" on a forum for talking about keyboards XD
Mods retroactively editing this can only lead to even more problem

If you want a cluster of nonsense, go have a look at the Eric S. Raymond thread. I had to step away from DT for six months just to calm down after that one. Kids these days.

To clarify and take some wind out of the "I don't want mods to put words in other people's mouths" argument, I thought it a given that any change should go through some sort of regulating process and most of all be transparently marked as a "change by a third party" in the given Post.
That being said I still think your concern is valid.

For me it's a question of feasibility on regards to
A: where to start and especially where to end with such corrections but mostly
B: the workload this puts on our mods compared to the (minute) benefits our community gains from this.

Shorle wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2022, 09:32

…any change should go through some sort of regulating process…

…the workload this puts on our mods

That’s a workload right there: expressed as this very thread, for just one such change. A change which now appears very unlikely to happen.

See you all next time, eh? I’ll be nursing some brandy in the judge’s room, to keep y’all waiting. Nobody needs a sober justice, right?

Well, on the other hand, I accepted (and in fact wanted) to be a mod and was aware I would put a workload on me.
But my intention was to protect and preserve DT by eliminating unwanted stuff - and editing legit postings doesn't belong to that.

To be more earnest about it: I'm not really complaining about the workload, so much as the implicit yet underestimated obligation such requests put on us, if they really became a thing. All someone has to do is to come to us asking for such and such to be corrected, and then we're supposed to hold a tribunal (like this thread), with the ghostly defendant tried in absentia for Being Wrong on the Internet? Do we use "the balance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" to make our final final judgement? Do we need corroboration? Does the Moorov doctrine come into effect? Should we sign the final edit to the post, and invite further fire fights discussion as to its merit and ours as vile and manipulating dictators committing crimes against text on the internet?

Doesn't seem a sensible order of affairs! Inviting way too much trouble. Haven't we learned this stuff is incendiary enough yet?

All of which is to say: I agree with you.

Muirium wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2022, 10:05

Shorle wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2022, 09:32

…any change should go through some sort of regulating process…

…the workload this puts on our mods

That’s a workload right there: expressed as this very thread, for just one such change. A change which now appears very unlikely to happen.
[...]

Just to clarify because your post gives me the vibe I came across differently than I meant to:

"... there needs to be some sort of regulation process"
therefore (and for other reasons stated)
"... the overall workload is too much for the little gain we have"

= All of which is to say: I understand your arguments and agree with you.

Shorle wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2022, 15:06

[…]
Just to clarify because your post gives me the vibe I came across differently than I meant to:

"... there needs to be some sort of regulation process"
therefore (and for other reasons stated)
"... the overall workload is too much for the little gain we have"

= All of which is to say: I understand your arguments and agree with you.

That's exactly how I had interpreted your post

Scratch your mods' bellies today and give them cookies.

XMIT wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2022, 01:38

If you want a cluster of nonsense, go have a look at the Eric S. Raymond thread. I had to step away from DT for six months just to calm down after that one. Kids these days.

That was probably the stupidest argument I have ever seen unfold on the internet, and I am simultaneously proud and revolted to have participated. Honestly impressive what fuckery keymorons can accomplish sipping mountain dew in their mothers basement.

headphone_jack wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2022, 15:32

XMIT wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2022, 01:38

If you want a cluster of nonsense, go have a look at the Eric S. Raymond thread. I had to step away from DT for six months just to calm down after that one. Kids these days.

That was probably the stupidest argument I have ever seen unfold on the internet, and I am simultaneously proud and revolted to have participated. Honestly impressive what fuckery keymorons can accomplish sipping mountain dew in their mothers basement.

There were some pretty good french toast recipes that came out of it at least.

Damn, now I have to read it.

Much nastiness, and the end result? Everyone* still uses Soarer’s converter, and the code is as unlicensed as ever.

*Not you, obviously. You’re too hip. I get that. But the rest of us squares, who just use what we can use.

For what it’s worth: I still agree with esr’s argument that the current state of affairs is asking for trouble. But his bull in a china shop attitude was asking for pushback, and boy did he get it! I loathed the trolling on that thread, but I will admit that they too had a point. (Would have been nice if they tried to make it directly a little more coherently instead of all that trolling.) Soarer owes us nothing, and we’re better off reimplementing and superseding his permanently closed source work. However, few of us have the chops for controller coding and so the rest of us stick to what we know, as users.

Muirium wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2022, 18:30

Much nastiness, and the end result? Everyone* still uses Soarer’s converter, and the code is as unlicensed as ever.

*Not you, obviously. You’re too hip. I get that. But the rest of us squares, who just use what we can use.

For what it’s worth: I still agree with esr’s argument that the current state of affairs is asking for trouble. But his bull in a china shop attitude was asking for pushback, and boy did he get it! I loathed the trolling on that thread, but I will admit that they too had a point. (Would have been nice if they tried to make it directly a little more coherently instead of all that trolling.) Soarer owes us nothing, and we’re better off reimplementing and superseding his permanently closed source work. However, few of us have the chops for controller coding and so the rest of us stick to what we know, as users.

I can't even find Soarer's converters anywhere. I just bought an ADB converter from some website called tinkerBOY and it works, so I'm not complaining.

ADB means it’s not his. He didn’t convert that protocol.

I’ve never bought a Soarer’s converter, either. But I’ve made a dozen or more. That’s how we did it, back in the day.

I made another this year, actually, along with ADB and NeXT using Hasu’s TMK firmware. Yes, I could have used TMK on the PS/2 converter, too, and maybe I will compile that sometime. But Soarer’s is what I know, damnit!