Does this make me #2 ban on GH?

[dirge]

Not massively off topic, disagreement and offence are kinda at the root cause.

We're on page ...6 anyway saying on topic never gets past page 1

[webwit]

realize this forum was pretty much created on a disagreement but you know what I mean..

It wasn't, urban legend. Sixty and me were pretty deep into keyboards, and just fantasized what it would be like to run our own forum with our own style. I bet some of you do. We didn't want to run one alone, so we started it together and with Mrinterface and daedalus. The only person who had an issue with gh was me, and from the beginning I always kept my issues separate from starting dt with these guys, because I didn't want to project my petty fights on them or on this forum. It wouldn't have worked that way, why would other people start or join a forum to help a one-man "disagreement site"?

[dirge]

Right! sorry I think that was just me taking 2+2 and coming up with 5 then.

Good to know the history hope sixty's doing okay too. It's been quite a while now.

[7bit]

But I remember a lot of disagreements between Sixty and iMav about some forum features etc.

GH was and still is not moving into the direction some of us want. So better don't waste your time with the GH scrap-yard-Kindergarten.

[webwit]

Maybe he wanted to do some things different (which he did) but there was no fight or anything, and he kept posting on gh after dt's release without agitation or something. Sixty is not a conflict person

[jcrouse]

As long as your educating the noobs in DT history, Please apply a relative time. When did DT come into existence and how long had GH been in existence at that point.

Thanks,
John

[webwit]

dt: 29 Jan 2011
gh: 2007?

[jcrouse]

dt: 29 Jan 2011
gh: 2007?

Nice, happy anniversary.

[damorgue]

Politics, ethics, economy, psychology and now history. This thread has discussed a lot.

[webwit]

Don't forget safety blade shaving.

[prava]

This subject is rather easy. The way I see it, there are only 2 ways of doing things properly, and the solution that is currently implemented at GH is... terrible.

I am a staff member at a very very reputed spanish forum for 2nd hand sale goods (mostly computer relates stuff), and we do not tolerate any sort of threadcrapping into the sales sections. None. Any comment posted in that subject that is not show interest is instantly removed, and the user sanctioned. BUT, at the same time, we forbid any kind of sales that are meant for profit. I think its a very safe point because people that trade over there know that the final prices will never be above market prices (not even on rare goods that are commonly subject to speculation) and thus there isn't any information bias as it happens with such closed markets as the keyboard-related we are part of. People behave accordingly because: a) The forum has a closed registry and you require to get invited but somebody on the inside (and, thus, why people won't even try to make profit... all they will face a 1 month ban the first time, and permanent the 2nd time) and, b) The trade success sits at a 99.4%... and thus why people wants so badly to get in... and, once they do, they will work their ass hard to keep their accounts.

So, the only way of doing things properly, IMO, is:

a) Libertarian mode. Allow any price and speculation but, at the same time, allow people to comment prices as much as they like.

b) Total control on the environment. Forbid any kind of comments regarding the price but, at the same time, guarantee that people aren't speculating with their goods and aren't profiting off the work of the staff. I don't know about you... but I'm not investing a ton of my time to moderate a forum so that certain users can "make their august" (hacer el agosto, in Spanish, as in august we the high-season and prices get crazy due to the bare demand).

---

As it is, specially in the hobby we are into, the GH system is totally unfair. The community is small enough that asymetric information is the norm because some users are in the know but most aren't... and the fact that for-profit sells are allowed but people can't comment on them is highly pathetic. Hey, I don't mind if you are looking for $50 of profit per CC... but at least have the balls to allow people to comment on your sale, whether they like your price or they don't.

At the end of the day I don't see the "libertarian way" forbidding people's opinion in anything related to it, and thus why its a decent option should you take it... but either accept it fully or don't.

Heck, I don't mind people making profit... but I do when people have information regarding many things (cof cof GMK) but choose not to share it so they can profit themselves. Are you telling me that people who sold their Cherry Esc keycaps didn't know about the GMK keycaps that were to appear shortly? Or those "very rare" keycaps that will probably get reprinted?

Seriously, asimetric information is a huge deal.

[Tenkey]

Didn't this dude dangwang auction his stuff for a dead dog or some "financial crisis" he had and kept on buying korean customs, what a joke.

[DanGWanG]

Didn't this dude dangwang auction his stuff for a dead dog or some "financial crisis" he had and kept on buying korean customs, what a joke.

Yeah that's me man But just to clear the air, my Korean customs were purchased in July (but you know with production lead time they don't come till later) and my financial crisis hit end of September. That is a good joke!

[metafour]

Damn. I wondered where that thread went. Bunch of mongrels.

[SmallFry]

Yup... ban number 2.

[dirge]

Dan ask for an account deletion, you don't want your details taken if they get hacked again

[JBert]

Can't you just ask them to delete PMs and clear the password? It's bad when posts go missing.

[fossala]

I had mine deleted but kept my posts. Under my name it just says guest now.

[dirge]

Can't you just ask them to delete PMs and clear the password? It's bad when posts go missing.

Banning someone but keeping their useful content does favor forum over the person. But I guess the poster should understand the post isn't theirs after hitting submit.

[DanGWanG]

I asked for an account deletion, but the admin team said it would be more difficult to do that and they sounded hesitant for going that route. So I asked for a self-ban since I'm no longer interested in that community. I'd say they finagled the words a bit in their favor, but it is what it is. (i.e. "So you're saying you deny our lifting the ban" or something like that)

I'm here and I'm on reddit (and on OTD and KBD)!

[Peter]

I asked for an account deletion, but the admin team said it would be more difficult to do that and they sounded hesitant for going that route. So I asked for a self-ban since I'm no longer interested in that community. I'd say they finagled the words a bit in their favor, but it is what it is. (i.e. "So you're saying you deny our lifting the ban" or something like that)
I'm here and I'm on reddit (and on OTD and KBD)!

DanGWang : Don't worry, be happy !
Sometimes it's dangerous to know to much !!
Those idiots buy storage-systems for their Darth Wader caps !!!
AND for their stupid nail-polish caps !!!!

They even plunder collector-grade Euro Cherry-boards, with NKRO,
to put the caps on their Goddamn China-commie boards !!
(I was recently watching the GH-'post-your-caps' thread : Please bring me a bucket and a cleaning-woman !!)

[webwit]

It will be interesting to see how this difference in communities develops.

Here, we got members complaining in the Ergodox thread that people having their say about massdrop should be silent because they have no interest or disagree, including Dox who angrily took it to gh. He wanted it locked, to prevent further talk - didn't like that talk so everyone should shut up. We probably had people leaving because of that. In one thing they are right: it would have been a more neat, focused thread.

But on geekhack there are people leaving because essentially they have no free speech and don't own their posts. Say stuff against the grain, and you are excluded and corrected.

Do people want a neatly controlled environment where everything they don't like goes away, to keep most people happy, or do they want to express free speech while owning their posts but also dealing with different and sometimes not so neat opinion, which is out of their control?

[7bit]

(I was recently watching the GH-'post-your-caps' thread : Please bring me a bucket and a cleaning-woman !!)

Pleasse keep a GH account for the purpose of vomiting!


Don't do this here!

[Soarer]

Here, we got members complaining in the Ergodox thread that people having their say about massdrop should be silent because they have no interest or disagree, including Dox who angrily took it to gh. He wanted it locked, to prevent further talk - didn't like that talk so everyone should shut up.

I don't blame him at all. Just look at how many posts have been moved to the massdrop arguing thread - 343 so far. It went WELL beyond people having their say. And perpetuating the argument in the ergodox thread even after the group buy had finished just made it ridiculous.

[webwit]

I think our committee of People Who Decide When Other People Have Had Their Say and Should Shut Up was sleeping.

But you tell me what to do in a hypothetical case with different players in the future. Person A decides to engage in an open community to talk about some project, and loves to use it as a platform as long as people discuss the things he likes to talk about. Then when people talk about stuff he doesn't like and it doesn't stop, he demands them to shut up. How would you divide free speech?

[Soarer]

Ad-absurdum, nice.

So you want to paint dox as pro-censorship even though he put up with page upon page of massdrop argument before finally deciding he'd had enough?

It's not just that it didn't stop, it's that the arguers didn't have anything new to say. Most importantly, they appeared to be using 'free speech' in a way designed to disrupt the free speech of others by spamming the thread. So you tell me - whose free speech is more free than others?

[7bit]

Well, if discussion run parallel like in the ErgoDox thread, a split would be really helpful. Mixing both, a technical discusstion and criticism and praising of the commercial group buy organiser makes the thread not so readable. Having both separate helps both discussions.

On the other hand, my key caps group buy threads ar full of even more categories of posts, like:
- in for post #9999
- how does ordering work?
- please add @#$% to the DGFHDFGHJ/GFH/HHFTFRJ kit!
- will we get our Round 3 replacements ...
- SVG graphics discussions
- language layout discussions
....

So, in fact the ErgoDox thread should be glad to have only 2 parallel discussions and the Demongolator can enmongolate both threads again.

[Soarer]

It would've been good to split the massdop discussion off sooner. Perhaps not long after the GB actually started, but certainly by the time it finished. It's no use crying over spilt milk.

[rknize]

Speaking generally as a member of the mechanical keyboard community, both of the forums seem to serve their purpose. While I find the frequent lamenting against other forums from certain members here personally amusing, I still think of them as part of one community (Kumbaya and all that). We still manage to collaborate constructively from time to time in spite of the verbal salvos hurled over the wall that separates the two. Personally, I take advantage of and enjoy the positive aspects of any free public forum and don't waste too much energy trying to brute-force changes to things I don't like. Unless I am paying for it, it's just not worth it. But that is just me.

As far as the Ergodox thread, why is separating an already bifurcated topic into two an attack on one's freedom of speech? It's simply an organizational choice and it's really not that hard.

[webwit]

they appeared to be using 'free speech' in a way designed to disrupt the free speech of others by spamming the thread.

Arguing against massdrop disrupts the free speech of others, and it was by design? I think that is quite a dramatic accusation. But then logically the objective observant should note that arguing in favor of massdrop disrupts the free speech of others as well, by design, because they repeatedly continued the subject. Or you have picked sides.

Anyway I think your statement is fundamentally flawed, because it's still merely about your favored opinion in this argument. It's still just picking sides and wanting to shut up the other by calling their on-topic contributions where they reply to other people "spam". If you divide free speech like this, in fact you can't and you end up with a censored environment, because people would shut up other people by prosecuting them "for disruption of the free speech of others" (where does it start, where does it end?), in other words, saying something which wasn't liked by the prosecutors with whatever standard they are applying.

Ad-absurdum, nice.

You dismiss my hypothetical case about free speech where I was looking for intelligent debate, as an absurd counter attack, that's not very nice.