A User's Union

[why06]

Hello Im trying to start a union of users to set a moral code for the interwebs to be if not followed atleast respected. And I am building this union to uphold this code an standard. So naturally I am looking for any sites or users that have been reppresed and mistreated by bad management. This site seems pretty well, but if anyone knows of any sites or are interested in helping with the union I would appreciate it. I need help to find these oppressed users....

[hhEb09'1]

I went to your website there (it says you have four registered members, but the membership lists only three) and couldn't find the code of conduct that is mentioned on the front page. Where can I find it?

[Gillianren]

How could such a thing be enforced?

[hhEb09'1]

It's like the Ten Commandments, version 11.002

[sarongsong]

How about windmillsDOTcom, Don? http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
11th Commandment: "You do too know what I mean!"

[why06]

well there is no code of conduct yet. All one has to do is register a profile. I can make one I suppose to set down some basic rules, but I am more occupied in listing people than getting them to post. Just to have someone join would help i other membes joining. I am gooing from sitet to site trying to sell this concept.... it is a hard one...

[sarongsong]

Your site is quite sparse about who you are and your motivation(s)---have you looked into the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/)?

[why06]

that is an interesting site, but it does not seem to put much interest in forums. As for motives this organization goes deeper than you knows. This forum is a front for much greater organizations of many users in cluing, but not limited to:
http://spacesterzone.com/bb1/index.php
http://uplink.space.com/ubbthreads.php
http://the-hit-club.com/ down due to server transfer
http://jatslo.com down due to server transfer
http://12-moderator-matrix.com/ also down one of our greatest plans..


But like I said we are just sgetting started growing. Do you want to help the cause or know of any sites who need help?

[Paul Beardsley]

How could such a thing be enforced?
I don't think it needs to be enforced as such. Rather, it would be a case of some forums (fora?) earn the Badge of Decency or whatever it gets called. In time, any established forum that has not earned the Badge of Decency will be regarded as not worth visiting - the likes of GLP, for instance.

But I don't get the idea of "oppression" in a forum, at least from the top down. Here on BAUT, for instance, we can't talk about politics or religion. But that's a rule we're made aware of right from the start. Anyone who needs to discuss these things can do so to their heart's content somewhere else, then come back here.

If there is oppression on a forum, it seems to be the oppression of ignorant armies braying abuse at anybody with a different opinion.

[sarongsong]

No need; I avoid 'repressive' forums altogether. http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Chuck]

Power corrupts. If the union became successful it would become an oppressor.

[John Mendenhall]

Power corrupts. If the union became successful it would become an oppressor.

Agreed.

[Captain Kidd]

Having been a member of a union before I resent that! Just ask the person serving as my ottoman, I have never failed to consider wiping the dog doo off my shoes before putting them on his back. And I never beat my chair seat fluffer for more than 5 minutes for not fluffing the seat correctly. As for my coffee pourer, well ... it's not my fault he had a heart condition.

[Grey]

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

;)

[why06]

Power corrupts. If the union became successful it would become an oppressor.


To be honest that is one of the thoughts I've had and I hope that never happens. But how do we know unless we try. If a forum wishes not to discuss philosophy and religion that is perfectly fine. Im talking about forums purposefully discriminating against their users by banning members of opposite views. If you look at the way I have the site set up there are many fail safes. In fact every site under the union selects its own representatives. And then anything those representative requests goes through a screening process in which an analyst will actually visit the site an d review the situation before any actions are taken.

And in fact I hope to take no action, but rather use diplomatic means to restore relationships between mods and admins.... Any sort of aggresive means would be a last resort as successs can not be predicted and an attack would be foolhardy because of this. It is for this reason that the union will serve as more of a means for diplomatic relations and less of a Dictatorial government persay. In fact if you would like to help in the management of the union to ensure that your nightmare scenario never comes to pass I will be more than honored.

[hhEb09'1]

Any sort of aggresive means would be a last resort :eek::eek:

[Tucson_Tim]

But forums like this one (and most others) are privately owned. Sort of like someone's house into which we've been invited. It's their house; their rules.

[why06]

Yes, but your their customer. A store isn't the same as a house. In the real world there are rules to prevent a store owner from mistreating people inside. Should these same rules be neglected on the internet? Should these people be mistreated and discriminated against for their opinions and beliefs.
A forum is like a house built by the users on the admins land. Yes it is the admin's house, but does that mean he should not respect the users that have took so long to make the place what it is?

A union is there to restore this natural communication. And if an admin turns against his users after our sweat and toil of mind has gone into creating that site than a same avenue can be used to destroy that site. You see an admin owns the land, but we hold the bricks. And if we were to take those bricks and leave that land would be nothing. It is for exactly this reason that such an action would be of no use to the union and a last resort. We are simply here to restore diplomatic relations between admins and users and give a user the influence to be respected by an admin that he otherwise would not have. We are restoring power to the indivisual by joining in a common cause. If you don't like my site make your own. just spread the word that a union is forming. We will all meet up eventually.

[why06]

No need; I avoid 'repressive' forums altogether. http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Do you know of any?

[SeanF]

You see A admin owns the land, but we hold the bricks. And ifwe were to take those bricks and leave that land be nothing. It is for exactly this reason that such an action would be of no use to the union and a last resort.

If you don't like my site make your own.
:doh:

[why06]

Are you confused?
Also please do not take my quotes out of context.

[Noclevername]

Why would "oppressed" users need a union? Why not just go somewhere else to chat freely? It's not like they can't leave...

[why06]

Yes, but it takes a long time to build up a reputation on a site and if you are banned or your style of government changes you are left without any other choices. In fact many times people establish friendships and so when those members are banned the medium throgh which that friendship occurs no longer exists. Henceforth going to another site would not fix the problem of stopping the discrimination or restoring those broken friendship. A little reminder from the union for a mod to consider the severity of the action he took and the benefits of accepting the user back might change that. A union member could even contact that banned member's friend(s) for him so that they may continue to interact.

[why06]

Why would "oppressed" users need a union? Why not just go somewhere else to chat freely? It's not like they can't leave...

Let me give you a scenario. If you were banned unjustly where would you go from here. What about all the people you know? All the knowledge you contributed to this site? The amount of time it would take to start new relations on another site?

[Noclevername]

Hmm, two (and a half) questions:

1) if you really are good friends with another user, wouldn't you get their e-mail address? (or PM them)

2) why couldn't a private user or users contact a mod re: his actions?

[Gillianren]

No, this is not a store. This is a place provided for us out of the goodness of Phil's and Fraser's hearts. The rules are made very clear. If you fail to follow the rules, why is that their fault?

[why06]

1) if you really are good friends with another user, wouldn't you get their e-mail address? (or PM them) Good point and most likely yes, but The point is to off an option.

2) why couldn't a private user or users contact a mod re: his actions? This is were we come in. When a mod or admin do not follow through with their tasks and a user is left without any justifiable means of getting justice.

[Noclevername]

This is were we come in. When a mod or admin do not follow through with their tasks and a user is left without any justifiable means of getting justice.

How would justice be gotten? And what definition of justice are we using here?

[why06]

No, this is not a store. This is a place provided for us out of the goodness of Phil's and Fraser's hearts. The rules are made very clear. If you fail to follow the rules, why is that their fault?

I wasn't talking of this place specifically and I never said it had to be their faults. I will not defend myself against a inference I did not make.

[why06]

How would justice be gotten? And what definition of justice are we using here?

Simply by relating the information to the mods or admins of the action they had taken and what case of the user. If enough users disagree with the action of the mod or user we will help them in whatever action they take after it has severely analyzed.

[SeanF]

If enough users disagree with the action of the mod or user we will help them in whatever action they take after it has severely analyzed.
I would really like to know what "whatever action they take" means.

If a bunch of users come crying to you that they were "unjustly banned," and the site owner tells you those users were a bunch of jerks who couldn't follow the site rules and there was nothing "unjust" about the banning, what will your union do?

[Noclevername]

Simply by relating the information to the mods or admins of the action they had taken and what case of the user. If enough users disagree with the action of the mod or user we will help them in whatever action they take after it has severely analyzed.


Again, I'm still confused as to why it would take a Union to do these things.

:think:

How do you "severely analyze" something? (Observe it until its state collapses...)

[Tobin Dax]

I wasn't talking of this place specifically and I never said it had to be their faults. I will not defend myself against a inference I did not make.

Then defend yourself against the inference you did make: If the rules are clear, and a poster breaks them and is banned, how is that the admin's/mod's fault?

If you don't like that question, here's another one in the same vein: How is enforcing rules (i.e. banning someone for a bannable offense) mistreating them?

[Josh]

Why06,

Perhaps you're going about this the wrong way? You might want to think of attacking the idea from the opposite end.

As Paul Beardsly described in the fifth or sixth post to this thread, you might want to try and set up a reward for good sites instead of a punishment for the bad ones. Find some very good sites and try to get the owners of the sites on board. Set up a voting system for people of the web to vote for fora with outstanding service and management - and make that voting system involve writing an actual reason for the vote.

In time, if you maintain integrity and work to find great fora on the web, your label on a particular forum will become a badge of honour for them. People will, in time, know that sites validated by you are fora worth visiting. And other sites will strive to have the badge too.

It's probably a lot easier to find the good in things and more rewarding to do so than not.

Now ... aside from that, it sounds to me like why06 is being attacked by some of you. I'm all for asking questions of people with new ideas ... but can we please do it in a tone that isn't so aggressive? Essentially, why06 is trying to do something good for the interweb, so instead of trying to find fault with it and catch him out, try to help and cultivate.

[Noclevername]

Now ... aside from that, it sounds to me like why06 is being attacked by some of you.

What attacks are you talking about??

[Josh]

As i said above, it's in the tone of the questioning. Perhaps I'm misreading so I'm not about to point anyone out. It's just something to think about when posting. I'm sure if I'm reading it that way, others might too.

[Noclevername]

As i said above, it's in the tone of the questioning. Perhaps I'm misreading so I'm not about to point anyone out. It's just something to think about when posting. I'm sure if I'm reading it that way, others might too.

Why06 presented an idea. We're examining its merits or lack thereof. That's what we do here. I've seen no insults or personal remarks about the poster, just remarks about whether said proposal sounds like a good idea or not.

And I'm not good with "tone" even in person, let alone on a keyboard, so if anyone took offense, I'm sorry.

[Noclevername]

Let me give you a scenario. If you were banned unjustly where would you go from here. What about all the people you know? All the knowledge you contributed to this site? The amount of time it would take to start new relations on another site?

I'd whine a little, then go elsewhere. The internet's a wide-open field. Not a major loss.

And it's not like I'm the only contributor to this site, it'd do fine without me and I'd be fine without it.
I suspect most folks here would feel about the same.

Again, how do you define "unjustly"?

[Josh]

Why06 presented an idea. We're examining its merits or lack thereof. That's what we do here. I've seen no insults or personal remarks about the poster, just remarks about whether said proposal sounds like a good idea or not.

And I'm not good with "tone" even in person, let alone on a keyboard, so if anyone took offense, I'm sorry.

Having been here since 2003 and being a moderator pretty much the entire time, I realise what the nature of this board is, Noclevername. There are still ways to go about examining the merits or lack thereof of anyone's claims.

There were no warnings handed out when I posted above. I noticed the beginnings of a line of questioning that, to me at least, seemed aggressive and I'm trying to nip that in the bud before it gets out of hand. As I said in the first place, I'm all for asking questions, but please try and be nice about it.

Oftentimes, I see people on here treating someone's suggestion like they just said the Sun was made of iron or that nobody ever went to the Moon. This is a place to help foster concepts that might have some merit and seek out good ideas, not try to break them. I'm not sure that everyone here knows the difference.

[why06]

Then defend yourself against the inference you did make: If the rules are clear, and a poster breaks them and is banned, how is that the admin's/mod's fault?

If you don't like that question, here's another one in the same vein: How is enforcing rules (i.e. banning someone for a bannable offense) mistreating them?

Please dont get mad. I am not trying to cause trouble and have no intention of doing so. I just want your help. Now you all bring up a good idea about a badge of honor. Like I said there are many ways of approaching the situation and anything negative would be a last resort. I like the idea of honoring the bad sites.

Also if a situation were to be analysed we would got to the site itself... elect representatives on the site if not elected already and the conversation would exist between the convicted user, the admin, the site reps, our analyst and hopefully a site Mod. This however can be changed and your help is needed to decide a policy.

[why06]

Having been here since 2003 and being a moderator pretty much the entire time, I realise what the nature of this board is, Noclevername. There are still ways to go about examining the merits or lack thereof of anyone's claims.

There were no warnings handed out when I posted above. I noticed the beginnings of a line of questioning that, to me at least, seemed aggressive and I'm trying to nip that in the bud before it gets out of hand. As I said in the first place, I'm all for asking questions, but please try and be nice about it.

Oftentimes, I see people on here treating someone's suggestion like they just said the Sun was made of iron or that nobody ever went to the Moon. This is a place to help foster concepts that might have some merit and seek out good ideas, not try to break them. I'm not sure that everyone here knows the difference.
Thank you very much. I hope to see that carried out. It really is a nice forum here and I would hope that such an idea could be stated with out fear. I would have you know there are many forums in which such a thread might face imediate banning of the user of deletion. I thank you for your hospitality and hope to return the favor one day...

[Noclevername]

Oftentimes, I see people on here treating someone's suggestion like they just said the Sun was made of iron or that nobody ever went to the Moon. This is a place to help foster concepts that might have some merit and seek out good ideas, not try to break them. I'm not sure that everyone here knows the difference.

Hmm, based on what you said, I went back and reread this thread; I still am unsure of what you are referring to. What were the questions that you considered out of bounds?

[why06]

Can we just get back to the discussion...

[Josh]

I'd like to not take this thread anymore off course. Noclevername, please see PM.

[Noclevername]

Got it! And now, back to the show.

[why06]

Okay then we left off at courses of action. I believe a badge of Honor would be a great idea. And I am interested if you all know of any sites that mite also want to hear this idea.

[Josh]

Like I said, I think you should approach site owners. Perhaps present them with a well written blurb about what you want to do and why and then go from there.

[why06]

However its not me alone. it has to be the users. My voice means nothing without any backing. I will need users or at least the general agreance of the forum before anything is carried out.

In fact if this forum would like to help by selecting representatives and having discussions with the admins I would love to start here. I have a long journey ahead of me trying to spread this concept across the many fora. So any help would be appreciate. You all have already given me a valuable idea for the conducting of the union.

What actions could we set up on this site.... though I doubt you need them, if this site elects representatives I will be glad to give it a badge of honor. Yes, I know it means next to nothing now, but listing a site such as this will greatly increase the appearance of the union and urge other sites to be listed. Eventually it may be beneficial to the user and the admin. That is my dream for this organization....

[Josh]

First you have to come up with a set of guidelines and your philosophy and then present that to the board owners. You need to put in a bit more work before this will go anywhere I think.

[why06]

Well here is what I have so far:
Philosophy:
To restore diplomatic relation to corrupted forums and to praise those that do while simultaneously establishing a code of conduct for the interwebs established by the very people who made and nutured it into what it is to day; The User's. It is by this that the users will form a union in order to create an avenue through which this plan may occur. That union would work to do the following:

1.) urge others to recieve leverage the union will bestow upon members while simultaneously listing the benefits it can bestow upon a site's owner, admin, and moderators

2.) As These points are addressed some structure must be given for the purpose of organization and establishment of an avenue through which Users and admin will have direct relations. It is my thought alone that a team would consist of elected representatives from the site itself chose by majority vote of the users and approved by the admins. This team would consist of one Representative, a Assistant rep.(hopefully a Moderator) and an Analyst. The Representative is the middle ground between the Moderator who has the most loyalty to the admin and the analyst who is a user who has loyalty to other users and has the greatest influence in the union. Wehn any discussion are had discussing the treatment of an indivisual it will go to the representative who will either relay information to the admin or the union depending on the circumstance. While every user should try to contact the admin or Mod first the representative serves as a means of communication when neither can be reached... either because the admin blocks Pm's frrom normal users or the user is banned and would like to be heard.

3.) I wich to list these reps. and this site in the union so that other union members may know that public relations are in operation on this forum. This will serve as the "Badge of Honor" for the forum. All with perhaps an additional listing within a list for honored sites if ther forum exhibits public relations desirable of praise. In this way keeping public relations is a symbiotic relationship in which both sides benefit from the relation.

4.) Most of all the union needs members. This gives it political backing whenever a relation is established. If many have joined that is that much more strenght such a relation would. So it is hoped b y this that by this relationship being established the users of that forum would join the union to show their political backing for the officers represented by listing the sites joined and supported by them under their profile. Also when other members join from different sites though they may not directly support such an other forum a general code of conduction will be established by studying and watching relations on many forums. This will turn in to the Union's general code of conduct established by the users for the users with the general number of admins approval. This way the code of the union is not only the establishement of the unions, but the sites themselves so that other sites and users may realize that this is not simply a code established by rogue users, but of the general consensus of sites themselves.

[why06]

How does that sound? Any other suggestion??

[Sp1ke]

To be frank, Why06, this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

If I joined a forum whose moderators acted as you describe in the worst case, I just wouldn't continue to use it. I stick with this forum because it is well moderated and most contributors act in an adult way.

I think if you want to gather support, you need to start by explaining why anyone needs a "forum union". If you want people to be interested, you need to tell them why they should be interested.

[why06]

To be frank, Why06, this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

If I joined a forum whose moderators acted as you describe in the worst case, I just wouldn't continue to use it. I stick with this forum because it is well moderated and most contributors act in an adult way.

I think if you want to gather support, you need to start by explaining why anyone needs a "forum union". If you want people to be interested, you need to tell them why they should be interested.
Hmmmm.... your probalbly right...

And the truth is I am the one who needs a union. This is a good site and Im glad you have found it home, but there are other sites specifically the one I come from where the moderation is becoming corrupt. The things is there are good users there, but they are not being treated yet they stay because of the style of the forum and the other members. This is one of the reasons while the community is so strong. I don't want to give away any names, but pehaps someof you know which forum I am talking about....

You can help us and many others by helping yourself. The truth is this site probalbly doesn't need a union, but many sites do including my own. This is why I need your help.

[Sp1ke]

If you like the users and the content of your problem forum, why not get together with some of the other unhappy users and set up your own forum with a similar content? Then you could moderate it in a way that you're happy with.

To me, user forums and the like are resources that survive or fade away depending on how much their content is valued. If a forum is alienating its members, it will should naturally wither away. The content would have to be very good to overcome failings in its moderators.

[why06]

If you like the users and the content of your problem forum, why not get together with some of the other unhappy users and set up your own forum with a similar content? Then you could moderate it in a way that you're happy with.

To me, user forums and the like are resources that survive or fade away depending on how much their content is valued. If a forum is alienating its members, it will should naturally wither away. The content would have to be very good to overcome failings in its moderators.
Well that's just it. no one wants to leave, but not many like what is going on. Also the point of a union is to empower the users so that if something like this ever happened to you u would have our support as we would have your. We help each other....

[SeanF]

Well that's just it. no one wants to leave, but not many like what is going on.
Seems like if no one wants to leave, then it can't be all that bad.

Also the point of a union is to empower the users so that if something like this ever happened to you u would have our support as we would have your. We help each other....
But support in what, exactly? That still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

This other forum where you're having your difficulties - what would you actually expect to happen if this union existed? How - exactly - would it influence the hosts/moderators of that forum to change their ways?

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, why06, but I honestly just don't get what this is supposed to accomplish...

[Paul Beardsley]

This other forum where you're having your difficulties - what would you actually expect to happen if this union existed? How - exactly - would it influence the hosts/moderators of that forum to change their ways?
Yes. At this stage, it sounds a bit like the philosophers threatening to go on strike.

[Captain Kidd]

Hmm, if 75% of this board went on a three, four, or five day strike, would anything change? Could you even get 75% of the members to participate, even if they were "union" members. Okay, posting slacks way off for awhile, but then what? Such a thing sort of did happen (SciFi Chick comes to mind). But I don't know if a "union" would have made it resolve any better, it might as well have cause things to blow even further out of proportions.

Rather than a union, this really seems more along the lines of a "Friendly Forum Seal of Approval" or a variation of a consumer advocacy group.

Such a seal where forums with a reputation of friendliness get some sort of nifty icon to display might be useful if it became popular. Then if you're out cruising for an answer to a question that's been nagging you and you find three potentially helpful forums, one of which is displaying the seal, you could more easily choose which to post on. But then typically my questions have already been asked and answered so I just look through the threads Google provides, read the answer, and leave without having ever registered.

I don't know about the advocacy group comparison. I guess it depends on the forum owner(s) mentality. Unlike stores, most forums aren't a revenue source so it's not like the owner is going to suffer from loss of visitors.

As others have pointed out, the forum is going to govern itself, much like the market. If the mods are too lax, you'll get flame wars (or a GLP-like free-for-all); if they're too tight, people will leave and the board will wither away unless changes occur. About the best that would happen, from what I can see, is that such a seal would just be there to encourage new users, That's if they even pay attention to it.

It's a novel concept, but it's going to take a lot of time and investment on your part. Months (years?) to fully develop the idea and the interviewing of a large number of forum owners. Then you'll have to pitch it, etc.

[Josh]

...but it's going to take a lot of time and investment on your part. Months (years?) to fully develop the idea...

Agreed. If you are really set upon making some sort of recognised "seal of approval", then definitely a fair few months or years is the amount of effort you'll have to put in. Are you willing to do that?

[why06]

Agreed. If you are really set upon making some sort of recognised "seal of approval", then definitely a fair few months or years is the amount of effort you'll have to put in. Are you willing to do that?

In that case that seal will have to have the support of the union. The point is we have to start somewhere. We have been discussing this idea for months on and off, but we have yet to take any action on it. This is what I created the site for. I am also trting to buy the domain now for usersunion.org but it seems it s currently under the ownership of some rogue owner....it will take a while to procure the domain. :wall:

Let me tell you what the union is for:
1.) to enstow a balance of power between users and site owners.
2.) to help out the indivisual user who is to weak to be heard alone.
3.) to encourage good public relations between governing classes of forums and forums users.
4.) (this is what you all mentioned) to point out the good sites and to fix the bad.

How do we do that?
1.) by uniting in users to gain diplomatic power so that users may elect representatives to speak for them and have a voice.
2.) boycotting... again a last resort, but a neccessary option in order to show the political power of the union.
3.) Awarding Badges of Honor. Another system in which to show the diplomatic power of the union.
4.) Also there are aggressive methods when enough users are willing to make the sacrifice, but I doubt if such a thing can ever be organized to occur.
5.) Lastly there is the Forceful buying out of a site again a last resort that can only be accomplished. This is a progect I left up to a friend. The progect is called he M-12 and may well be our most powerful asset....

[Captain Kidd]

4.) Also there are aggressive methods when enough users are willing to make the sacrifice, but I doubt if such a thing can ever be organized to occur.As in a DDOS? Isn't that illegal by many countries? yeah, yeah, still done, but because the instigators are hard to find. This union would be visible and supposedly have a headquarters, offices, etc., quite findable by law enforcement. Not to mention just having such a threat in a manifesto sent to forum owners could really get you in hot water. Terrorism and protection racket mob insurance (what's that called, crud my mind blanked.) comes to mind. Especially the latter and especially if the next item occurs too.

5.) Lastly there is the Forceful buying out of a site again a last resort that can only be accomplished. This is a progect I left up to a friend. The progect is called he M-12 and may well be our most powerful asset....Now you're talking dues. From who? The sites displaying the seal? Members?

[edit, edit, edit, my post count would equal ToSeek's if edits counted.]

[SeanF]

How do we do that?
1.) by uniting in users to gain diplomatic power so that users may elect representatives to speak for them and have a voice.
2.) boycotting... again a last resort, but a neccessary option in order to show the political power of the union.
3.) Awarding Badges of Honor. Another system in which to show the diplomatic power of the union.
4.) Also there are aggressive methods when enough users are willing to make the sacrifice, but I doubt if such a thing can ever be organized to occur.
5.) Lastly there is the Forceful buying out of a site again a last resort that can only be accomplished. This is a progect I left up to a friend. The progect is called he M-12 and may well be our most powerful asset....
So you're talking about an honest-to-god, Jimmy Hoffa, "send Guido out to bust some kneecaps" union. :eek:

Sorry, I can't get on board with that. You had it right earlier (and it's why I quoted you saying it earlier):

If you don't like my site make your own.
You've got that option, you don't need a "union."

Website owners are not nearly powerful, control-your-entire-life-no-other-options entities like employers.

[why06]

As in a DDOS? Isn't that illegal by many countries? yeah, yeah, still done, but because the instigators are hard to find. This union would be visible and supposedly have a headquarters, offices, etc., quite findable by law enforcement. Not to mention just having such a threat in a manifesto sent to forum owners could really get you in hot water. Terrorism and protection racket mob insurance (what's that called, crud my mind blanked.) comes to mind. Especially the latter and especially if the next item occurs too.
Huh? DDOS?

Now you're talking dues. From who? The sites displaying the seal? Members?

[edit, edit, edit, my post count would equal ToSeek's if edits counted.]No.... no... that's the beuaty of it... You may find out soon enough.

[why06]

So you're talking about an honest-to-god, Jimmy Hoffa, "send Guido out to bust some kneecaps" union. :eek:

Sorry, I can't get on board with that. You had it right earlier (and it's why I quoted you saying it earlier):
Again... "huh?" Its not a real union as we aren't employed as union, but are contributions can still be controlled like a work force so it is for that reason that I call it a union.... an online union...


You've got that option, you don't need a "union."

Website owners are not nearly powerful, control-your-entire-life-no-other-options entities like employers.
Well... yeah that's exactly right Im just offering an option. It up to you if its worth giving it a try... all you have to do is try it... give it a shot... its not a commitment.

[Gillianren]

Well... yeah that's exactly right Im just offering an option. It up to you if its worth giving it a try... all you have to do is try it... give it a shot... its not a commitment.

I, for one, don't have to try it. I'm on two fora. In both cases, the adminstrators (mods here as well) are friendly, helpful, and thoughtful. They respond to alerts and private messages about concerns in a timely fashion. I have no problem. Therefore, I do not need to try to implement a solution.

[SeanF]

Again... "huh?" Its not a real union as we aren't employed as union, but are contributions can still be controlled like a work force so it is for that reason that I call it a union.... an online union...
But your intent is to use intimidation and force to get what you want.

Well... yeah that's exactly right Im just offering an option. It up to you if its worth giving it a try... all you have to do is try it... give it a shot... its not a commitment.
My point is, nobody needs this option. It won't accomplish anything that couldn't be accomplished through already available means.

[Captain Kidd]

Huh? DDOS?I think a lot of us interpreted your "solution" as something like that. What did you mean by "aggressive" and "users making sacrifices"? Just quitting a forum wouldn't really cut it.

No.... no... that's the beuaty of it... You may find out soon enough.Well, there's hosting Google (other other) ads, selling stuff, dues, donations, and extortion. Unless you have a rich uncle that just passed away leaving you as the sole heir.

Thing thing is, does the internet really need something like that?

[why06]

But your intent is to use intimidation and force to get what you want. My point is, nobody needs this option. It won't accomplish anything that couldn't be accomplished through already available means.
No my point is to use diplomatic means to get what you want. What force do I have? There has to be something backing up the union. And I would think the fact that we can do something or have to possibility to join together is much more intimidating then any sort of force or attack. Why do you all keep thinking where going to attack something. I push that as far out of the conversation as I can in all my posts. I barely even dwell on it, but that seems to be all you can get out your heads. The only reason I mentioned is for the point of intimidation. To actually believe that thousands of users can be motivated in any kind of common attack is incredible. I only offer it as an option that we might be able to use. It is a bluff most likely, but it is needed for us to have any sort of real leverage to the admin or site owner. I hope you understand that I hope to do things as legitimately as possible. If a site is misbehaving the least threatening thing to do besides giving a general warning would be to by out the site.... These funds can be procurred two ways throug the profit the union makes itself and through the M-12.


Also what Im saying is you don't have to do ANYTHING on the site. All you have to do is register a profile and then leave to show that give your political power to the union by agreeing with its Code of Honor which will be your Code of Honor. Hence joining the union will take no more commitment that registering and agreeing with yourself.

Why join then if you don't have a problem? By giving your political leverage you can help users that do need a union. You don't have to worry about doing anything on the site... users will join along and along that would like to take a more active approach. So if I have a 1000 members and only a 100 active I will be fine because that will be more than enough users to carry out the basic task of help those in need and each of those active members will have the influence of a 1000 behind them. Do you see what I mean?

You don't have to do anything, but join and create a profile...

[why06]

You guys are a tough crowd... I admire that. That makes the Code all the stronger.

Also if you know of any other sites that might want to hear about this I would appreciate. And hey thanks a lot for what you all have done so far:
SeanF, Captain Kidd, Gillianren, etc. I really appreciate it.

[Frog march]

you'd have more success in making a union for school kids so that they would have somewhere to turn to if their school wasn't treating them well. which was an idea I played with when I was at school. A kind of under ground network of kids from all over the UK, but we didnt have the internet in the eighties.

[Captain Kidd]

I guess why we focus on the perceived violence is that that’s the mostly likely item that’s going to get you into trouble. Even a bluff is still a threat until it’s called. It doesn’t matter if the gun’s loaded or not, if you point it at somebody, it’s loaded. (Gun safety 101: treat any weapon as if it’s loaded, even if it’s obviously not.) Not to mention:
To actually believe that thousands of users can be motivated in any kind of common attack is incredible.Most board owners are going to know that too.
Why join then if you don't have a problem? By giving your political leverage you can help users that do need a union.I’m still trying to figure out if that’s even an issue. Is that an issue now? Can you cite forums that are today in need of such a union intervention? As somebody earlier mentioned, are you really sure that this isn’t a solution in search of a problem?

Don’t get me wrong, as I said earlier it’s a nifty idea, but are you sure you don’t need to step back and really and truly deeply examine what you want/need to do with it? If some sort of seal does indeed get popular and a must-have, just the threat of having it revoked would probably be threat enough. However, I’ll also bet you that should you go in a seal direction, a significant portion of you membership will be forum owners. After all, what makes a forum good isn’t just members posting.

(Heh, now to take a flight of fancy. Say this union happens and does invoke some/all the “actions.” I can then see the forum owners banding together and forming their own union and hiring internet Pinkertons to bust the strike. Carnage thus ensues and an internet Homestead Strike occurs leading to international regulation of forums and a New World Order thus heralding the end of the world. Of course that means that all of this, including this conversation, is actually being orchestrated by the illuminati. Sorry, sorry, the earlier mention of GLP must have affected me.)

However, a grade-school level student union is an excellent idea. The student unions/governments in college do, mostly, provide good support for and advocacy of students' needs.

[SAMU]

Why06,

I would agree with the idea of a site awarding a "badge of honor" to fora which adhere to principles defined by the judging site. Any site is vulnerable to moderator corruption. In some cases all it takes for an attacker to be a moderator is to paste links to news articles in the genre of the site he intends to attack. He appears to be interested in the site but he really isn't. He just wants a place to play and flame with impunity. He can often be identified by his postings. Lots of links to news articles in a scattered pattern with little creative commentary or thought.There are three kinds of people in the world; performers, audience (where would performers be without an audience?) and hecklers. Hecklers have little to contribute and don't seem to even enjoy the show. They seem to be envious of everyone especially the biggest entertainers. Hecklers who become moderators go after the most interesting posters while they could care less about threads that "go off the tracks" even though that is supposed to be one of their specific responsabilities. They frequently contribute to derailing threads.

I like how your proposed site is organized in the bulletin board format particularly if it has a voting option. This would allow accusers to post their case and for respodants to post their case and for votes to be cast anonymously without the fear of reprisals from the accused site's moderators.

It would require scrupulous monitoring of members to make sure sock puppets don't skew the vote.

Of course it would also require that site owners care what their rating is. But since this may become a method of setting prices for advertising on their site they might be inclned to care if a low rating means they get low prices and a high rating gets them high prices. Also a site with many contrbutors but a low rating would be open for a takeover of its contributors by a rival site looking to take over its advertising revenues or membership fees by offering better terms for its contributors.

As to principles by which sites might be judged. (For those who asked what justice is.)

Accusations against a site must be accompanied by specific, detailed, truthful and public reasons with links to the page(s) where the action took place or copies of the page(s) in the cases where the accused site deletes its wrongdoing.

A starting point in judging a site would be an evaluation of the rules or FAQs of the site to be judged.

I would suggest that sites with "catch 22s" in the rules be given unfavorable ratings. Same with sites that require secret, private or private message hearings of grievances. Sites that ban for public discussions of grievances should be given the lowest rating. Same with sites that cultivate fear of banning for public discussion of rules or moderators.

Except in the cases of spam, trolling and flaming, sites that allow moderators to take action without allowing the accused to respond would get a bad rating. By "allow" I mean that the accused must be allowed a reply. He may or may not reply to the accusation on his first post after the accusation is made but if it is made by a moderator then his first message after the accusation must address the accusation or he losses his right to reply to the accusation prior to moderator action.

Sites that allow non-moderators to issue warnings and accusations prior to moderator action get a bad rating.

Sites that require moderators to to give specific, detailed, truthful and public reasons for their actions would get good ratings. Sites that don't would get bad ratings.

Sites that don't monitor the actions of their moderators and correct or eliminate bad moderators get bad ratings.

Sites that allow moderators to volate their own rules get bad ratings.

Sites that allow moderators to make up their own rules get bad ratings.

Sites that allow moderators to cite a rule and take action against a contributor for a post directly allowed by the rule get a bad rating.

Sites that allow moderators to demand or imply that the same question be answered ad infinitum=bad rating.

After a site is given it would be listed on page of rated sites organized by genre and rating would be available. In fact that would be the first page on the site so someone wanting to find a site for astronomy for example could find lists of rated sites and a statement of reasoning for each sites rating with the links to the discussion and voting. That way a user could decide for himself if he wants to participate in a particular site.

I mention the principles above as I have been treated unfairly by moderators of this site for all of the above mentioned reasons. I have been PMed in support of my case but with expressions of fear that such expressions of support expressed publicly would result in reprisals. As mentioned in this thread there is some fear that this discussion itself may bring a repressive ban or lock.

Judged by the above principles the BAUT would get a very poor rating. It didn't used to be like this. But, as I wrote at the top, any site can go bad. This one has gone and is getting worse. There have been more and more threads of this type here. All of them have the same undercurrent in the discussion that the discussion could be locked and users banned in reprisal for discussing principles, rules, moderators or falacies which don't adhere to the BAUT's definition of fallacy.

Anyway, best sucess with your idea. I for one will join your site.
SAMU

[Maksutov]

Based on 40 years experience I tend to be very suspicious of anyone from eastern Tennessee, unless they prove I shouldn't be.

[Maksutov]

Why06,

I would agree with the idea of a site awarding a "badge of honor" to fora which adhere to principles defined by the judging site. Any site is vulnerable to moderator corruption.[edit]Judged by the above principles the BAUT would get a very poor rating. It didn't used to be like this. But, as I wrote at the top, any site can go bad. This one has gone and is getting worse. There have been more and more threads of this type here. All of them have the same undercurrent in the discussion that the discussion could be locked and users banned in reprisal for discussing principles, rules, moderators or falacies which don't adhere to the BAUT's definition of fallacy.

Anyway, best sucess with your idea. I for one will join your site.
SAMUCan't leave it alone, eh SAMU?

I'd feel for you, but I can't reach you.

:lol:

[SAMU]

Can't leave it alone, eh SAMU?

I'd feel for you, but I can't reach you.

:lol:

And what "It" would you be referring to for the second time? Care to specify or are you afraid of their reprisal for discussing their unprincipled actions?

[please]

As it goes, the ban is applied to a person who does something that admin/mods did not want him to do, but since the person does that, he obviously thinks it's right thing to do. Therefore, that person cannot ever hold any opinion other than he was right and they were wrong in the ban situation.

On the other side, admin/mods are certain that the person is wrong because he either went against Forum Rules or their own will (which coincide with Rules in case of admin, btw).

Now, why either banned person or admin/mods would want you, 3rd party, to decide right/wrong of their situation on the basis of your Union Code? It would have nothing to do neither with interests of that person, nor with interests of admin/mods. Of course, the person may occasionally find your judgement to be in his favor, but that rare occasion is little incentive for that person to be involved in constant boycotting of other irrelevant forums.

[SeanF]

No my point is to use diplomatic means to get what you want. What force do I have? There has to be something backing up the union. And I would think the fact that we can do something or have to possibility to join together is much more intimidating then any sort of force or attack. Why do you all keep thinking where going to attack something. I push that as far out of the conversation as I can in all my posts. I barely even dwell on it, but that seems to be all you can get out your heads. The only reason I mentioned is for the point of intimidation.
Well, yes, I think intimidation is a bad thing - the threat of force, used to achieve a goal, is not measurably "better" than the actual usage of force.

And I guess I just don't see how this will achieve anything, short of that threat. I figure just about all the forum sites out there can be divided into two groups: those that are considerate and responsive to user complaints, and those that aren't. The former would never need the union, and the latter would just ignore it as they do their own users.

[why06]

On the other side, admin/mods are certain that the person is wrong because he either went against Forum Rules or their own will (which coincide with Rules in case of admin, btw).
What if this is not the case? Or what if users feel the action taken is to harsh?

Now, why either banned person or admin/mods would want you, 3rd party, to decide right/wrong of their situation on the basis of your Union Code? It would have nothing to do neither with interests of that person, nor with interests of admin/mods. Of course, the person may occasionally find your judgement to be in his favor, but that rare occasion is little incentive for that person to be involved in constant boycotting of other irrelevant forums.
He would not need to be involved in constant boycotting of other forums. All he would have to do is the same thing he does already. Also most likely an admin doesn't want me this is for the users. Hence the name.... "User's Union"...

[Tucson_Tim]

The river Temarc, in winter!

[why06]

Why06,

I would agree with the idea of a site awarding a "badge of honor" to fora which adhere to principles defined by the judging site. Any site is vulnerable to moderator corruption. In some cases all it takes for an attacker to be a moderator is to paste links to news articles in the genre of the site he intends to attack. He appears to be interested in the site but he really isn't. He just wants a place to play and flame with impunity. He can often be identified by his postings. Lots of links to news articles in a scattered pattern with little creative commentary or thought.There are three kinds of people in the world; performers, audience (where would performers be without an audience?) and hecklers. Hecklers have little to contribute and don't seem to even enjoy the show. They seem to be envious of everyone especially the biggest entertainers. Hecklers who become moderators go after the most interesting posters while they could care less about threads that "go off the tracks" even though that is supposed to be one of their specific responsabilities. They frequently contribute to derailing threads.

I like how your proposed site is organized in the bulletin board format particularly if it has a voting option. This would allow accusers to post their case and for respodants to post their case and for votes to be cast anonymously without the fear of reprisals from the accused site's moderators.

A starting point in judging a site would be an evaluation of the rules or FAQs of the site to be judged.


Anyway, best sucess with your idea. I for one will join your site.
SAMU

Thankyou SAMU,
I want you to know Im taken notes on everything you said. And I hope to see you on the site so we can help further develop this Code. In fact I believe our first step in this discussion should be to figure out a Code of Honor....

So I think our first question should be, weather this Code of Honor should change according to specific forums or be universal? Personally I think it should be universal as developing a Code of Honor might be time-consuming, unless it was developed by the users themselves. So I am feeling we should create a Universal Code and then allow a small amount of inconsistancies throughout the whole....

I want you all to know also to know that you are not being included in any kind of taskforce by joining the union. And that if that ever need occur we would never use users from the site where the problem has occured... We do not want to in anyway threaten the members existance so any sort of taskforce: this includes analyst, peace relations, etc. would not be from the forum in question. Okay that aside I am going to right down some of what SAMU said in my sight...

So I want what all of you think of as a Good site and Bad site the same way SAMU did:

[why06]

Based on 40 years experience I tend to be very suspicious of anyone from eastern Tennessee, unless they prove I shouldn't be.
Uhhh...What?!:shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty:
...what did you have 40 years of experience being a deer?:lol:

[why06]

Well, yes, I think intimidation is a bad thing - the threat of force, used to achieve a goal, is not measurably "better" than the actual usage of force.

Well there are two ways of going about this. One is a negative way one is a positive way.... I thought I could do this myself, but now I see how obviously wrong I am.... It takes all of us to come up with a way the union should carried out. You guys have shown me the light... in that there are more than one ways to be heard. And if you all choose a peaceful approach then I support it a hundred percent. If want to approach this like Martin Luther KIngs than be my guest... lets decide a peaceful way of handling this shall we?:think:

[Captain Kidd]

Based on 40 years experience I tend to be very suspicious of anyone from eastern Tennessee, unless they prove I shouldn't be.What about Middle Tennesseans. ;)

[Tucson_Tim]

What about Middle Tennesseans. ;)

Khidir beneath Momouteh.

[Musashi]

As mentioned in this thread there is some fear that this discussion itself may bring a repressive ban or lock.

Where?

[hhEb09'1]

As it goes, the ban is applied to a person who does something that admin/mods did not want him to do, but since the person does that, he obviously thinks it's right thing to do. Therefore, that person cannot ever hold any opinion other than he was right and they were wrong in the ban situation.I don't think that necessarily follows ("Therefore..."). I've seen a number of instances where the offender has apologized, and admitted that they were wrong. Happens to the best of us.

[why06]

Where?

Don't dwell on it. I think it was mentioned by me, but I was talking of other sites at the time...

[Gillianren]

I don't think that necessarily follows ("Therefore..."). I've seen a number of instances where the offender has apologized, and admitted that they were wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Quite right, and exactly what I was going to mention. I've seen several people around here come back from suspensions with an apology--and mentioning casually how right the decision was in a discussion about something else entirely months later.

[why06]

I agree...

[SAMU]

I really like the idea. I've been thinking about it and the internet has been needing something like this for a long time. It could be a money maker. More abut that later.

I think a code of principles for a sites rating should function as a user derived statistic.
Since sites are different then the users should post their own proritiy values.
For example a vote regarding grammar and its importance to the users and administrators of a site would generate a statistic in the form of a bar graph regarding grammar's importance to the users of the site.

Anyone viewing the union's report on the site would know if the site's views on "grammar" coincide with his own.

That said there should be some overall constitutinal principles or default statistics the union site would generate. For example if a site has secret hearings on grievances then that should be a non user derived statistic for a site but the users of the site would vote as to whether it is an important issue to them, if it's what they want or if the policy results in acceptable site performance. That vote could be represented by a bar graph. Those issues would be at the top of the report.

Then there would be grievance issues. Those would be issues posted by the users of the site and there would be the same vote as to whether the issue is important to the users of the site and the site's policy and response about the issue.

After the union site has been on for a while there should be some indication by the member's postings of how most members think sites should perform and those would form the basis for the expansion of the constitutional criteria on the union statistic pages for users to be able to judge for themselves if they want to participate in that site or to find another site that better fit their own values.

Failure of sites members to participate in votes would generate a statistic as well. For example if a site is listed based on a user grievance but none of the other members vote on that issue or the other constitutional issues then a reader of the union site's report might assume that the site has no members or that the members of the site in question don't care about its other members.

Advertisers want a stable audience. They have shied away from the internet for a long time because of the kind of destabilizing attitudes expressed in this thread. "Don't like it here? Go away, find someplace else etc". Advertisers want you here. They don't want to keep having to hunt you down all the time and waste money advertising on a site that allows its users to be driven off for any reason.

A good rating from a union site would tell advertisers what the basis for the rules of a site should be and if users are satisfied with the performance of the site. There may be commercial support of such sites and commercial support of a union site to do the "leg work" of making a detailed report on the site in question.

Who knows, this could be one of the "portal" issues that a site like Google might be interested in. For this reason it could be a million dollar idea.

Keep up with it. I hope it does well

Sincerely
SAMU

[why06]

Advertisers want a stable audience. They have shied away from the internet for a long time because of the kind of destabilizing attitudes expressed in this thread. "Don't like it here? Go away, find someplace else etc". Advertisers want you here. They don't want to keep having to hunt you down all the time and waste money advertising on a site that allows its users to be driven off for any reason.

A good rating from a union site would tell advertisers what the basis for the rules of a site should be and if users are satisfied with the performance of the site. There may be commercial support of such sites and commercial support of a union site to do the "leg work" of making a detailed report on the site in question.

Who knows, this could be one of the "portal" issues that a site like Google might be interested in. For this reason it could be a million dollar idea.

Keep up with it. I hope it does well

Sincerely
SAMU
If we do get the advertisers on our side... then sites might well be looking for us instead of the other way. You have pointed out that the key to sustaining power is by being on the top of the food chain.... If the adminastrators control us then the Advertising agents control them since they control the site owners' budget. And since the advertisement adhers to us we may very be on the top of the food chain. We are the consumers and I think one of the first things we should realize is that we are on top since the buisnesses and producers must always yield to the majority. The problem with the internet is that majority is dis-organized. And buisnesses KNOW that. If we were to come together in an organized union it might be a different game entirely. I will get to work thinking up ways to rank sites on a global union level and on indivisual poles completed by site users.
Here's what I think we should do:

1.) Let users here create their own code of how they think things should be handled. (Ex. Number of chances a person should get be for perm. suspension)

2.) Elect representatives and to join the union to empower themselves and give their loyalty to the user-created code.

3.) Create a universal code of honor that I will work on as change I more and more sites enter the union.

4.) We may create polls, but that will be after the union has developed more and we have decided what sites should be polled on...

[Maksutov]

And what "It" would you be referring to for the second time?Hate to have to explain obvious antecedents, but, here goes. "it", of course, refers to your constant complaining about how you've been treated by the folks who administer this BB.Care to specify or are you afraid of their reprisal for discussing their unprincipled actions?Begged question will go unanswered.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Maksutov http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1008081#post1008081)
Based on 40 years experience I tend to be very suspicious of anyone from eastern Tennessee, unless they prove I shouldn't be.
Uhhh...What?!:shifty::shifty::shifty::shifty:
...what did you have 40 years of experience being a deer?:lol:If I were an eastern Tennessee deer I'd be rotting on the side of the road with the impression of a Budweiser bottle in my head.

No, that was 40+ years of being an eeee-vil Northeasterner, a representative of the source of all our nation's troubles. Funny how that view isn't as prevalent in Kingston as it is in Bean Station. It seems to increase as one goes east, with a peak somewhere around the Tri-Cities.

[Maksutov]

What about Middle Tennesseans. ;)They're fine. After all, they have White Castles!

[Tobin Dax]

If I were an eastern Tennessee deer I'd be rotting on the side of the road with the impression of a Budweiser bottle in my head.

No, that was 40+ years of being an eeee-vil Northeasterner, a representative of the source of all our nation's troubles. Funny how that view isn't as prevalent in Kingston as it is in Bean Station. It seems to increase as one goes east, with a peak somewhere around the Tri-Cities.

You're making me really look forward to being a Oregonian in Kentucky next school year.

[why06]

They're fine. After all, they have White Castles!

Exacty! All we have is Krystals... That's why we're so evil :evil:


Dang-it! now you got me into it... can we get back on topic please... East Tennesseans and fears of bannings aside...

[SAMU]

Tennesee is off topic for this thread and it is against the rules to hijack threads. Of course, as I have mentioned, that rule is barely enforced here, even by mention, by the moderators.

To continue this discussion I will go to the thread regarding BAUT on the union site. However that thread seems to be on a different topic. I wonder if I should start a thread about how BAUT mistreated me as an example of how a union could present ratings on issues like this for a site like BAUT. I would present the evidence, allow opposing arguments (calling on moderators to keep the discussion principled) and poll the readers as to their priorities about the issue as presented.

What do you think why06?

[Tucson_Tim]

Why06,

Anyway, best sucess with your idea. I for one will join your site.

SAMU

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

[why06]

Sure be my guess...

I encourage anyone others to do the same to keep topic from being side tracked... we will work out a plan like we are now and come back to BAUT and implement it. I would like for you all to be included in that discussion, unfortunately I feel this thead has degenerated beyond repair and users will continue talking about Tennesseans and pecking at each others mistakes...

[Josh]

Why06,

As you can see, there are some people with some really good ideas for you. I hope we've been a help.

One thing I'd suggest before taking on any cause or grievance, is to do a background check of the people making a complaint or joining your cause. A simple check of previous posts could stop you from getting egg on your face later down the track.


As an aside: Tucson Tim ... I'm going to go watch that episode right now. One of the best.

[Tucson_Tim]

As an aside: Tucson Tim ... I'm going to go watch that episode right now. One of the best.

My wife HATES it! I know it doesn't seem logical for an alien society to speak in English metaphors, but I've always liked that episode. :)

Tim

[Noclevername]

My wife HATES it! I know it doesn't seem logical for an alien society to speak in English metaphors, but I've always liked that episode.

So, that whole "Universal Translator" they mentioned in the episode wasn't needed after all? And they never knew! Poor Federation!

[Noclevername]

My wife HATES it! I know it doesn't seem logical for an alien society to speak in English metaphors, but I've always liked that episode.

So, that whole "Universal Translator" they mentioned in the episode wasn't needed after all? And they never knew! :lol:

[SAMU]

Why06,

One thing I'd suggest before taking on any cause or grievance, is to do a background check of the people making a complaint or joining your cause. A simple check of previous posts could stop you from getting egg on your face later down the track.




That doesn't follow. It wouldn't be the union's responsability to reserch a complanant's past history. The union would simply host a discussion of the complainants case with the complainant posting his evidence to support his complaint and the union would post a link to the discussion along with with the accused site's rating. If the accused site values its rating it would post its response to the complainants case in the discussion and if need be include the past history of the complainant to support its own case against the complainant. The accused site may choose to change its behavior toward an agrieved user in response to a complaint to the union. The internet users could read both sides of the case and make up their own minds about it.

As it stands at BAUT complaints are required to be discussed secretly and are disposed of in an unprincipled manner. They can't even be discussed or referred to publicly without banning thus hiding the unprincipled handling of the cases. As it is users of BAUT have to make an investment of time and effort, make friends and then find out that they have made a bad investment because it could all be lost due to an unprincipled moderator.

[antoniseb]

BAUT complaints are required to be discussed secretly and are disposed of in an unprincipled manner.

Are you using some technical definition of 'unprincipled' that has a meaning different from the common usage? We follow strict principles.

[hhEb09'1]

As it stands at BAUT complaints are required to be discussed secretly and are disposed of in an unprincipled manner. They can't even be discussed or referred to publicly without banning thus hiding the unprincipled handling of the cases. If it's secret, how do you know it's unprincipled? Unless just being secret is considered unprincipled, which is obviously false.

[SAMU]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMU
BAUT complaints are required to be discussed secretly and are disposed of in an unprincipled manner.

Quote Antoniseb:
"Are you using some technical definition of 'unprincipled' that has a meaning different from the common usage? We follow strict principles."

I'm using it as defined by Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86869&dict=CALD ; adjective
having or showing no moral rules or standards of good behaviour

Since grievances here are required to be secretly handled by PM then the "Showing" of the moral rules applied to agrieved posters cases is what I refer to.

Obviously secret hearings of grievances allow grivances to be handled in all kinds of utterly immoral ways. The agrieved can be threatened to get them to accept a moderator's illegitimate demands and if an agrieved does not comply with a moderator's demand he can be banned and the rest of the group knows nothing. Then again grivances could be handled secretly by just ignoring them and banning public discussion conceals that lack of moral standard.

If the intent of your question was to get me to admit that unprincipled is a bad thing then I admit unprincipled is a bad thing. I fully intend it as a criticism of the policy of BAUT and of the moderators actions under that policy. It is not intended as a reference to a specific case of bad action. That is not specifically against the rule about PMing mods about grievances. But could probably be taken as such by the moderators here. It probably will be by you antoniseb as you were one of several moderators involved in an as yet still unresolved, undiscussed, undisclosed and repressed case of unprincipled moderator action.

[please]

I don't think that necessarily follows ("Therefore..."). I've seen a number of instances where the offender has apologized, and admitted that they were wrong. Happens to the best of us.This is not serious objection. What "happens" is simply that people change their mind, and consider their actions wrong at the time T+1, after they considered their actions right at the time T.

[hhEb09'1]

Obviously secret hearings of grievances allow grivances to be handled in all kinds of utterly immoral ways. The agrieved can be threatened to get them to accept a moderator's illegitimate demands and if an agrieved does not comply with a moderator's demand he can be banned and the rest of the group knows nothing. Then again grivances could be handled secretly by just ignoring them and banning public discussion conceals that lack of moral standard.saying allow, can be, could be, is different than what you said before, that it is. I am not defending a moderator or moderators, there are plenty of examples of mistakes. But it looks like you cannot defend your charge of "unprincipled" either.

This is not serious objection. What "happens" is simply that people change their mind, and consider their actions wrong at the time T+1, after they considered their actions right at the time T.Nonsense, I know plenty of people who commit actions that they know are wrong! :)

[SAMU]

saying allow, can be, could be, is different than what you said before, that it is. I am not defending a moderator or moderators, there are plenty of examples of mistakes. But it looks like you cannot defend your charge of "unprincipled" either.



What I wrote was "..are disposed of in an unprincipled...". And "this allows immoral..."

Unprincipled is not neccesarilly immoral but it is applied in cases "having or showing no moral rules or standards of good behaviour" Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86869&dict=CALD ; adjective.

I would call interpreting the part of rule 17 that says "If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator" as meaning "you may only discuss grievances secretly by PM or be banned" immoral because rule 17 doesn't say that and interpreting it that way is unprincipled allowing immoral action. But the owner here cares so little about the users here that moderators are allowed to openly get away with this kind of thing.

[hhEb09'1]

What I wrote was "..are disposed of in an unprincipled...". That's what I meant, yes.Unprincipled is not neccesarilly immoral but it is applied in cases "having or showing no moral rules or standards of good behaviour" Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86869&dict=CALD ; adjective.But we have plenty of examples of showing standards of good behaviour. And rules :)
I would call interpreting the part of rule 17 that says "If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator" as meaning "you may only discuss grievances secretly by PM or be banned" immoral because rule 17 doesn't say that and interpreting it that way is unprincipled allowing immoral action. But the owner here cares so little about the users here that moderators are allowed to openly get away with this kind of thing.Which examples, specifically? I'm interested.

[why06]

Nonsense, I know plenty of people who commit actions that they know are wrong! :)

You are exactly right however the point is make sure that the punishement fits the crime... For example if you curse on site should you be banned permanently or just warned. The union is here to open up those lines of comuunications so a user can apologize for his actions and a more just punishment can be given... by allowing the users and governing classes to communicate more regularly a better method of governing can be implemented that allows more tolerance an more appropriate punishments...

[why06]

That doesn't follow. It wouldn't be the union's responsability to reserch a complanant's past history. The union would simply host a discussion of the complainants case with the complainant posting his evidence to support his complaint and the union would post a link to the discussion along with with the accused site's rating. If the accused site values its rating it would post its response to the complainants case in the discussion and if need be include the past history of the complainant to support its own case against the complainant. The accused site may choose to change its behavior toward an agrieved user in response to a complaint to the union. The internet users could read both sides of the case and make up their own minds about it.

As it stands at BAUT complaints are required to be discussed secretly and are disposed of in an unprincipled manner. They can't even be discussed or referred to publicly without banning thus hiding the unprincipled handling of the cases. As it is users of BAUT have to make an investment of time and effort, make friends and then find out that they have made a bad investment because it could all be lost due to an unprincipled moderator.

To be honest I do think it would be our responsibility to look up the users back ground. Yes the users should decide for themselves, but we have a responsibility to live up to our Code of Honor. That applies to users and site owners. And since we are the ones taking action a back ground check will be mandatory in deciding what kind of action we should take... After all there may be few "boys who cry wolf"...

[why06]

Oh! and just so you know. I really do appreciates all of your help...

I think someone asked me that.. So yes I did get some good ideas from you all. Tell me if you guys will be interested in me coming back once I have worked out the kinks in my plan...

[hhEb09'1]

You are exactly right however the point is make sure that the punishement fits the crime... For example if you curse on site should you be banned permanently or just warned.Banned permanently of course :)

Seriously, in this medium, such a thing is not a spontaneous burst. If I hit my thumb and curse, I might be under duress and lose control. But here we type, edit, submit--without thumbscrews!--and we even have the ability to go back and remove any offending passage that might slip through. So, it looks to me like your example is an attempt by the user to be banned--we've seen it before. The user literally (and I use "literally" in its original literal sense) types "Ban me, ban me".... by allowing the users and governing classes to communicate more regularly a better method of governing can be implemented that allows more tolerance an more appropriate punishments...Again, seriously, we probably do not need more tolerance here. Why not approach some site that does?

[why06]

Banned permanently of course :)
Really you would be that iltolerant of other user? What if it is a mistake? What if the guy was just having a rough day? What if the user was sorry for what. I am surprised by you. It would seem a user would want freedom or at least protection from being permanently suspended, but you seem jump at the chance to be treaed as less than human. A to have your fair treatment taken away...
We do not need more tolerance here. Why not approach some site that does?

Sure, tell me of one. Also I am getting mixed signals from here. Im not sure what is going on.

[hhEb09'1]

Really you would be that iltolerant of other user?I am not a moderator, but I was just responding to your either/or choice. I'm not even sure that that is the consequence at this site. What if it is a mistake?Mistakes can be corrected--if they aren't, are they a mistake? What if the guy was just having a rough day? What if the user was sorry for what. I am surprised by you. It would seem a user would want freedom or at least protection from being permanently suspended, but you seem jump at the chance to be treaed as less than human. A to have your fair treatment taken away...Huh? I'm not treated as less than human. You seem to think that users have no control over their actions--are they "less than human" in your opinion?Sure, tell me of one. If you don't know of any, how do you know there is one? Why go to the trouble?

[Tinaa]

BAUT is not a democracy; it is a benevolent dictatorship. Phil and Fraser have the right to set whatever rules they feel necessary. They own the site.

The moderators here are from different backgrounds and different countries. They do their best to follow the rules as written. Do they make mistakes? Sure! I've apologized to members when I've made an error.

Much of the time, moderators discuss an incident before taking action. Members always have the option of appealing to a high authority - Fraser and Phil - if they have a problem with a mod's actions. The admins have the final say.

On another note, SAMU quit hijacking this thread to air your complaints about a mod's actions again is against The Rules.

Rule 17 states: If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

SAMU this post should be considered as a gentle warning.

[why06]

Hmmm.... It's not like he went as far off-topic as the guy talking about Tennesseans. Why not go after that guy intsead?

Or why not go after all the guys who don't contribute anything, but just pick on little mistakes?

Why did SAMU stand out among all those guys?

[SAMU]

So I take it that you misread rule 17 as well as several other moderators. It says nothing that disagrements with moderators must be discussed privately or be banned. It's about reporting by PMing moderators violations of other rules that could result in banning. It doesn't even say that reporting bad posts must only be done by PM. Such a position is unworkable. One person's "bad Post is another person's disagreement. The mention of discussing dissagreements with a moderator's action or interpretation of the rules in PM I see as a suggestion. Not as a draconian method to repress discussion of moderator mistreatment of users. That would be the wrong way. Clearly you as well as other moderators see it the wrong way and I think you should get clarification from BA before you take action on your illegitimate threat.

As for my "hijacking" this thread. This thread is about uniting against moderator mistreatment of users. Everything I have written has been on topic. You are throwing up a false accusation of "hijacking" to support your illegitimate warning. What you really want is to repress the exposure of illegitimate actions of moderators and repress a united user union.

I was in fact illegitimately banned for two weeks by Josh for the same rule 17 missreading that you have threatened me with here. As a result I banned BAUT for the passed several months and did not post here. Until this issue is resolved my ban against BAUT will continue. I will not post any of my creative and widely read ideas except about this issue untill I get a principled public discussion of the issue.

Although to even discuss it here is an investment of my time to improve this site and I have doubts that my investment won't be wasted.

[Tinaa]

Hmmm.... It's not like he went as far off-topic as the guy talking about Tennesseans. Why not go after that guy intsead?

Or why not go after all the guys who don't contribute anything, but just pick on little mistakes?

Why did SAMU stand out among all those guys?

How do you know I didn't go after that guy? I didn't because this OTB and there is a more leeway in discussions.

However SAMU has already discussed his mistreatment in several threads.

why 06 I know you mean well but check out these threads: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47465
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=49794
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46892

[SAMU]

Hmmm.... It's not like he went as far off-topic as the guy talking about Tennesseans. Why not go after that guy intsead?

Or why not go after all the guys who don't contribute anything, but just pick on little mistakes?

Why did SAMU stand out among all those guys?

Because they know I'm right and they are embarrased by their mistreatment of me and they want to repress my exposure of their mistreatment. They may have to take action to prevent that same mistreatment of users in the future. That could remove some of their power and some people don't like to lose power. They want even more.

As to the union researching the back history of all the accusers. This would be unworkable as well as unnecesary. Think of all the man hours it would take and the accused site has better access to the accuser's back history anyway. Not to mention that it may be irrelavant to a given case in any event. Note that mention of "back history" reserch was introduced by a moderator. An offending moderator by the way. He posts a suggestion that would break the back of a union. You have any suspicions of his motives?

[hhEb09'1]

Because they know I'm right and they are embarrased by their mistreatment of me and they want to repress my exposure of their mistreatment. I'm glad I was able to read your post before they repressed it!

[Gillianren]

So you know, why06, the regulars here have heard SAMU's complaints ad nauseam. The process of his suspension was no different from that of anyone else who isn't an actual spammer (he wasn't banned without warning and didn't have his posts deleted), but he's the one we discuss. The only one.

[Tucson_Tim]

Here's my (serious) take on this subject. . .

This is one of the finest forums on the internet and, to its credit, it has allowed this thread to remain open. I don't see more than one person jumping on this 'union' bandwagon which says that everyone here (but one) is satisfied with how this site is managed. Now, I don't see anything wrong with what why06 is trying to accomplish and there may be a need for a union such as this out there and for this reason I wish him luck - it certainly looks like a daunting task.

[why06]

Because they know I'm right and they are embarrased by their mistreatment of me and they want to repress my exposure of their mistreatment. They may have to take action to prevent that same mistreatment of users in the future. That could remove some of their power and some people don't like to lose power. They want even more.

As to the union researching the back history of all the accusers. This would be unworkable as well as unnecesary. Think of all the man hours it would take and the accused site has better access to the accuser's back history anyway. Not to mention that it may be irrelavant to a given case in any event. Note that mention of "back history" reserch was introduced by a moderator. An offending moderator by the way. He posts a suggestion that would break the back of a union. You have any suspicions of his motives?
NO! I hate to say it SAMU as you have given me much support, but it is critical that the union do background checks before any action is taken. Just like Tinaa showed me those post where you have brought this thing up again and again. And while a union is set up to bring power to the indivisual its main ppurpose is to establish fair treatment between all users including MOds. Those others may have taken this thread off-topic, but it seems you have done many threads repeatedly. It is for this exact reason that many in shis thread have mentioned that the union will become an oppressor. You are not being reppressed. You have been allowed to participate in this thread for 5 pages without an once of moderation. While I do think others should also be warned about going off-topic you seem to be not taking responsibility for your actions.

You took this thread off-topic. Do I think you should be banned for that? No! But it is my responsibility as head of the union to ensure that people are being treated fairly. You are not treating these mods or this site fairly by taking this thread off-topic. Please accept this so we may continue... On-topic.
I urge eveeryone else to do this to. I know threads naturally tend to go off-topic, but I feel it can be prevented with a little thinking. Thankyou Tinaa and SAMU.

[SAMU]

While there may not be many people writing in support of my position you may want to consider how many people are reading this thread. Obviously there is intrest in the results of this.

Why06,

This thread is about intrest in a union to protect users and, to be fair, mods and sites from bad activities. While I may have had to mention bad treatment of me in a number of threads to give a point focus like I did in this thread, as you mentioned yourself I didn't take this one or those that far off topic. If a history of protesting unresolved bad treatment is itself considered a bad action by you then I don't see the use of such a union.

As I pointed out and you noticed Tinaa's warning to me was for a very minor digression from topic. But I had obviously digressed to illustrate a union oriented point. I suspect and you must agree that it is to be suspected of being a warning not for "hijacking" this thread but for criticising moderator actions. Nowhere in the rules does it say that criticism is not allowed. In fact it is the stated purpose of this site to critcise wrong thinking in astronomy and to a lesser extent other topics. The moderators have been opposing criticism of their aguments and actions with the above demonstrated behaviors. A history of criticising mods for bad actions when there is no other recourse shouldn't be taken as "bad history" by any union. I'm sorry, while I believe that a union is needed it seems that you are inclined to establish your own values as the criteria for the union rather than allowing members of the union to set values for themselves.

I would not support a union leadership that does not seek, consider and support the needs and values of its members.

[why06]

I do not consider your protesting a bad record by any means. And to be honest I would protest myself if you were to get banned over such a minor grievance. I think your thoughts play a crucial part in the handling of this site. It is however adamant that the union not act hastily in any decisions, but analyze the right and wrongs of a situation. I do not believe that your pass offenses should effect the way you are treated according to others in any thread though. One warning should refer to one specific case of thread. To carry on and judge a user according to past offenses deals in a snow ball effect. However Tinaa in that this is going off-topic, but I would ask her if it is within the topic of a union to discuss the treatement of users by Mods and admins... That does not mean I just want your opinion, but all those who have participated thus far. In my opinion it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the treatement of users in this thread. However I am a diplomat and if a Moderator asks you to stop something in this thread this is not the place to discuss. Since a moderators instruction is law. The easiest rout to be heard would be to open up another thread asking about said deccision. Take notes because this is how the union will handle grievances.... in the most civil way possible. I ask that we not derail this topic anymore, but instead post said opinions into an alternate thread I will create. After which if we can allow for more tolerance to be given we should be able to continue posting said topic...

[why06]

Now according to rule 17 as Tinaa pointed out the best means to do this is by PM a Mod. So please disregard the statment in above thread about creating a thread.
If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

[why06]

So you know, why06, the regulars here have heard SAMU's complaints ad nauseam. The process of his suspension was no different from that of anyone else who isn't an actual spammer (he wasn't banned without warning and didn't have his posts deleted), but he's the one we discuss. The only one.

Could you explain this more?

[why06]

I am going to be fixing the kinks im my plan and maybe visit a few other sites, plus I need to do much work to my site. I will be busy for a while, but don't be afraid to ask me if you guys need any help in anything....

[mickal555]

I think it's a terrible idea.

[01101001]

Could you explain this more?

SAMU brings it up. Again and again.

[Josh]

Why did SAMU stand out among all those guys?

SAMU stands out because he has done this time and time again. And, you'll note, that he's still here. We haven't yet banned him permanently. That should speak volumes about the latitude we give people here.

When someone make s a few off topic comments we let it slide because that is generally the nature of discussion. If things get way off topic then we try to bring it back to the original topic.

And that's what we're all here for - interesting conversations and to learn a little something every now and then. When people try to stymie that (usually) good natured conversation, we moderators pay them more attention. SAMU, I'm afraid to say, is a case in point. We have nothing against SAMU as a person outside of his posting foibles - indeed we don't know him. As Tina said previously, the moderators are from different backgrounds, have different ideas about right and wrong in some case and as such discuss a lot of issues behind closed doors until we come to a consensus. This is similar to a jury going to deliberate after reading, seeing the facts presented.

As I pointed out and you noticed Tinaa's warning to me was for a very minor digression from topic
And how many of these "very minor" transgressions should be allowed? They come after a bevy of minor and not so minor ones.

[Frog march]

On topic(temporarily)

I have to agree with Mickal, that it isn't a great idea.

But I do think that it would be a good idea to have a forum for people, who have been banned(etc), to go to, to talk about their situation. A place where people they know can go, also, and participate in threads dealing with any particular situation.

But a more catchy name would be "Night of the Banned Forum"

[Musashi]

How is the User's Union going to deal with disruptive members? Will they be banned? Will they then have to form their own splinter Union?

[hhEb09'1]

How is the User's Union going to deal with disruptive members? Will they be banned? Will they then have to form their own splinter Union?Called the b(anned) union, or bunion, wouldn't it?

[Gillianren]

Could you explain this more?

Quite a few people around here have had temporary suspensions. Of those, there are four basic kinds. In decreasing order of frequency:

1) The hoax believers/against the mainstream proponents, who are suspended for behaviour patterns that they follow until they're banned, generally claiming oppression and censorship despite the fact that you can still read, in most cases, every word they ever posted.

2) Regulars who either cross a line too egregiously or too often, acknowledge the fault, and change their behaviour patterns to attempt to avoid further banning or suspension.

3) Regulars who cross a line too egregiously or too often, fail to acknowledge the fault, and end up getting permanently banned for persisting in the behaviour, which is typically a sudden change from their previous posting style.

4) SAMU, who crossed a line, in my opinion, too egregiously and too often and has started half a dozen threads complaining about the moderators' actions or posted in other threads started by other people to complain about the moderators' action, causing those of us who were privy to the initial thread to chime in with our own opinions; I have yet to see someone in the original discussion agree with SAMU about his interpretation of how the situation was handled.

[Maksutov]

Called the b(anned) union, or bunion, wouldn't it?The realm of Paul and his blue ox, Babe.

[hhEb09'1]

and definitely a pain in the axtremity

[Jim]

When someone make s a few off topic comments we let it slide because that is generally the nature of discussion. If things get way off topic then we try to bring it back to the original topic.

There is a thread on this subject (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=60507) which you might want to read, why06.

As long as the off topic post is not a true hijack attempt, the Mods will tend to ignore it. I don't think anyone really believes that there was a serious attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of deer in Tennessee. If you or anyone did believe that, they can (and should) report the post by clicking the red triangle in the upper right corner.

However, as noted several times, SAMU has repeatedly tried to discuss his perceived mistreatment by the Mods. There is even a recent thread on that subject (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=60493). Trying to do so here does look like a hijack attempt, given SAMU's history.

And, note that SAMU's attempt to change the subject/reopen an old topic here was met with a "gentle warning" from a Mod; SAMU is still with us.

As for your Users Union, why06, if you think it has value, go for it. However, I think you need to be aware that it has the potential to draw disgruntled users who want to use your Union to force boards to do things their way.

[why06]

How is the User's Union going to deal with disruptive members? Will they be banned? Will they then have to form their own splinter Union?

Sorry I could not respond earlier... I was out for the weekend. Believe it or not I wrote a paper on that. And as soon as I transfer it to the PC I will post it, but basically the union will function much like a relationship. If you lie all the time you can't hope to be respected. Since each request you send in is analyzed by other union members before any action is given... in cluding the fact that we I will personally do a background check on a site if I have to it would be in one's best interest to do good. I have all ready written up a set of rules that I would like to preview to you all on this site once I get a chance, but basically you could be banned from the union which means you would not be able to recieve its help since you would be banned by IP.

[SeanF]

Sorry I could not respond earlier... I was out for the weekend. Believe it or not I wrote a paper on that. And as soon as I transfer it to the PC I will post it, but basically the union will function much like a relationship. If you lie all the time you can't hope to be respected. Since each request you send in is analyzed by other union members before any action is given... in cluding the fact that we I will personally do a background check on a site if I have to it would be in one's best interest to do good. I have all ready written up a set of rules that I would like to preview to you all on this site once I get a chance, but basically you could be banned from the union which means you would not be able to recieve its help since you would be banned by IP.
I think you missed the irony in Musashi's question. What if the union bans a member and that member believes they were wrongly banned? What if more than a few members believe they were wrongly banned?

And then what if they start their own online group and start coming after you for "mistreating" them?

[Maksutov]

I think you missed the irony in Musashi's question. What if the union bans a member and that member believes they were wrongly banned? What if more than a few members believe they were wrongly banned?

And then what if they start their own online group and start coming after you for "mistreating" them?If it's like a number of unions I had experience with in the NE US, the members of that group will be privileged to have visits from the "boys", after which their objections will fade away.

[R.A.F.]

All I want to know is if I join this union, will I be getting more debunking money than I am now??

After all, isn't that one of the benefits of joining a union, better pay?

[hhEb09'1]

All I want to know is if I join this union, will I be getting more debunking money than I am now??

After all, isn't that one of the benefits of joining a union, better pay?Not pay for debunking, though. It's a user's union. Your pay for using would be doubled, by my calculations.

[Maksutov]

All I want to know is if I join this union, will I be getting more debunking money than I am now??

After all, isn't that one of the benefits of joining a union, better pay?As a former shop steward for the Teamsters, I agree that's one of the objectives: more pay. But, that's just one factor. Concurrent with the pay increase will typically be an increase in dues.

It's important to remember that it's not the union, it's the contract. Where I did my duties as a Teamster was a company where there was a "sweetheart" deal between the union and company management. The contract was a joke.

I recall one fellow who had been wronged by management and filed a grievance. I administered the grievance and the outcome was as expected: it was denied. He was quite upset and asked me specifically how his legitimate grievance could not have been upheld. I showed him the section in the contract where the weasel-words allowed management to get out of the jam.

He then asked where his recently-increased dues were going, since they were obviously not being used to help him and his fellow workers. I told him he needed to go to the local on Baldwin Street in Waterbury and check out the Cadillacs, Mercedes, and Jaguars parked outside. "That" I said "is where your dues are going."

[hhEb09'1]

If L. Ron Hubbard were alive today, he might start a union

[why06]

I think you missed the irony in Musashi's question. What if the union bans a member and that member believes they were wrongly banned? What if more than a few members believe they were wrongly banned?

And then what if they start their own online group and start coming after you for "mistreating" them?

Well that would seem pretty hard as the rules and code of the union is developed by the union itself. If someone were to form a union against the union it would be a union against the majority view... Like I said its not my rules its yours. If a user goes against the rules established by the majority they can be banned. Though I consider banning the last resort and so it will take a tremendous effort by the user to be permanently bannede by the union itself...

[Musashi]

What if you get a member who ardently believes he was mistreated but upon investigation you determine that he was not? What if he then will not stop complaining to the union about it? What if they refuse to participate in any way other than to tell you how you should be dealing with his problem (that you have already determined is not a real problem)? What if they then begin to complain about how your administration is horrible and that any intelligent person can see it and that all the highly intelligent people know how screwed up you are and that they have stopped posting because, well, they are highly intelligent and you are not? In other words, what if SAMU joins your cause?

[why06]

Well to be honest he's not doing that.... I don't know the way he acts on your foru, but he seems to be have in a very civilized manner on mine plus he has been contributing tons to the organization. Go look to see....

[Josh]

Well to be honest he's not doing that.... I don't know the way he acts on your foru, but he seems to be have in a very civilized manner on mine plus he has been contributing tons to the organization. Go look to see....

I've just had a read of your site and the site linked to by SAMU. It seems pretty blatant to me that all the contribution you've been getting from this disgruntled user is completely manipulative (case in point (http://usersunion.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=42)) and self serving! Have you asked yourself if he seems to have a sincere interest in helping you set this idea of yours up or if his main goal is to trash talk BAUT? Does BAUT seem like a 9 crosses and 2 ticks kind of place to you?

You came to BAUT and saw for yourself that it was run well. You commented on it on your own forum. And since being here you've seen a total of one person complaining about their treatment. If you've gone and read the background on that one user, as I suggested, you've seen that he is a bad egg.

I know you are in the infancy of this idea and reaching out for any help you can get, but seriously. Try for some quality over quantity.

[SAMU]

Well to be honest he's not doing that.... I don't know the way he acts on your foru, but he seems to be have in a very civilized manner on mine plus he has been contributing tons to the organization. Go look to see....

I am civilized here or any other place I go.

They commit the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem "Argument against the Man" when they call me "disgruntled" because they don't address the facts but introduce irrelevant personal premisses. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent (but not me...much) or the audience from the topic of the debate.

When they lock threads and ban me when I write critical expositions (frequently upon request for examples) they commit the fallacy Argumentum ad Baculum "Appeal to Force". Calling the Appeal to Force a "fallacy" is, if anything, too weak. At least a fallacious argument is an attempt to reason, albeit a failed one. To resort to force or threats when the burden of proof is on one is not to fail to reason well, but to fail to reason at all.

That's uncivilized.

[Josh]

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact based on the evidence. You are disgruntled. Are you happy with your treatment here? Are you satisfied? Contented with things? No, no and no. Are you complaining about it? Yes! So ... by definition you are disgruntled (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disgruntled)! (By the way, your attempt to bring out, everyones' favourite banning offence - the ad hominem - as an argument in your favour is a stroke of genius, really.)

It's okay to be disgruntled. But in conjunction with subversion, we have a problem. Your views have been aired, your concerns raised. The owners of this site have considered what you've said and, unfortunately for you, your arguments have been found wanting. The rules for this site were made after careful thought and deliberation. The actions of the moderators are scrutinised by both the other mods and the admin. That is and will remain a private affair. If you don't like that ... too bad. You've said your piece and the powers that be have disagreed with it. You can either accept that it's the way of the world that you don't always get what you want and put it behind you, or ... leave. I assure you, your continued complaining about previous moderation, and your derision in general will not see you long for this BAUT world.

[SAMU]

No Josh. You use the ad hominem "disgruntled" to fallaciously support your argument that


It seems pretty blatant to me that all the contribution you've been getting from this disgruntled user is completely manipulative and self serving!

Seems you don't want an internet union with a strong, intelligent, principled, experienced union leader in it.

[R.A.F.]

SAMU, what do you hope to accomplish with all of your complaining? Now, complaining is not a banning offense, however the folks who run this board only have so much patience, and you've worn that patience very thin.

Also, Josh is right..."disgruntled" is not an ad hom.

[Noclevername]

Seems you don't want an internet union with a strong, intelligent, principled, experienced union leader in it.

Why do you assume that you would be the leader?

[Gillianren]

SAMU, we tried to discuss your argument. You, as I recall, accused us of calling you a liar and refused to answer perfectly valid questions. I may well have been one of the people who reported your posts to the mods, though I cannot now remember for sure. (I don't think I was reporting anything but spam yet, though I do now.) Your tone was unnecessarily abrasive. You provided no evidence for your claims that could be tested. When this was pointed out, generally using the words "you may be mistaken in what you heard over water," you said we were calling you a liar, which no one was.

In short, you were exhibiting behaviour that I doubt you would have tolerated in anyone else. Let it go. You lost the battle on that one, whether you're happy about it or not. I like to believe you can still contribute something besides back-biting to this forum. Based on your current behaviour, though, I'm not sure you will.

[SAMU]

What I refused to answer were repeated questions where the answers were ignored, questions where independant corroberative evidence was ignored and where a bandwagon mentality for doing so was exhibited by many posters and moderators when Moderator Wolverine set the example by doing so.

It is not "abrasive" to point out that such questions are unprincipled and to refuse to answer such questions ad infinitum.

It is unprincipled for a site to oppose by moderator action any reference to unprincipled behavior when moderators do it to members or members do it to support moderators. It is unprincipled to oppose by moderator action a member who answers ("complains" about) such unprincipled behavior.

A union provides a third option other than the current "Love ir leave it" options currently available to members.

A union that rates sites according to democraticaly established principles independant of rated sites provides an independant datum by which interested parties can judge for themselves in advance of investing time and effort into a site or bulletin board if it conform to their needs, principles and values.

By joining, contributing to or being a leader of a democratic union, members might get a site to conform to democraticly established principles if and when sites exhibit unprincipled behavior.

[Maksutov]

If L. Ron Hubbard were alive today, he might start a unionHighly probable.

It would likely be something like "The Holy Union of the Church of Hoffatology".

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Meanwhile I see we are still being serenaded by vox clamans in deserto. Seems like a fugal effort, quite against the canon, and whose first subject is identical to the last subject. Round we go. Sometimes you just have to drop back and contrapunt.

I hope those who are new to the board realize this is sonata what it's all about.

Cadentially, where's that coda when you need it?

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/musik/e025.gif

[why06]

What I refused to answer were repeated questions where the answers were ignored, questions where independant corroberative evidence was ignored and where a bandwagon mentality for doing so was exhibited by many posters and moderators when Moderator Wolverine set the example by doing so.

It is not "abrasive" to point out that such questions are unprincipled and to refuse to answer such questions ad infinitum.

It is unprincipled for a site to oppose by moderator action any reference to unprincipled behavior when moderators do it to members or members do it to support moderators. It is unprincipled to oppose by moderator action a member who answers ("complains" about) such unprincipled behavior.

A union provides a third option other than the current "Love ir leave it" options currently available to members.

A union that rates sites according to democraticaly established principles independant of rated sites provides an independant datum by which interested parties can judge for themselves in advance of investing time and effort into a site or bulletin board if it conform to their needs, principles and values.

By joining, contributing to or being a leader of a democratic union, members might get a site to conform to democraticly established principles if and when sites exhibit unprincipled behavior.


I do agree with your tatement SAMU, but I might advise you to take a different approach. Constant complaining won't help. Everyone else here seams to be perfectly content. May I ask when did this all occur?

Why don't you just start contributing again and see what happens. Your complaints have been heard. Anything else is just spam. you may want to try it from a different direction. You have not been banned so just start contributing again. This is why is support the private handling of griviances. It protects the user and does not create a mob-effect in which a user can feel surrounded on all sides. SAMU you are not surrounded, but you need to get smarter about how and where you handle your grievances. If you handel them silently and effectively members will respect you... while if you handle them publicly you will be considered a whiner. If you have a grievance mention a specific case and handle that specific case with a mod or admin. If you still feel mistreated you may contact me as I am trying to create a third option. If I can not help you. Stop complaining and get on with your life because most likely you are wrong or have disobeyed preestablished code. I can not help you there. No one can help you here, but Hanlding grievances publicy and only in a general since does not help your case. This thread is an example of that... As you can see all you have said and all the discussion you have raised have resulted in zero net change. Please consider my advice SAMU.

[R.A.F.]

By joining, contributing to or being a leader of a democratic union, members might get a site to conform to democraticly established principles if and when sites exhibit unprincipled behavior.

emphasis mine...

SAMU, the only way that you will be able to effect change here is with the cooperation of the admin./mods. You don't seem to want to go that "route", so you continued complaining is just a waste of your energy.

[Tucson_Tim]

I have a "knee-jerk" reaction to the word "Union". I was in several unions when I was younger: SteelWorkers, Taxi, Construction. The Steelworkers Union was the WORST - it eventually helped bankrupt the Mill where I worked - at the very least it hastened the collapse.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that there are still industries and agricultural out there where the workers could benefit from a union, but an astronomy-based website - I don't think so.

[SAMU]

The unprincipled actions of moderators and BA here is not an isolated incident occuring only once or twice. It happens when they don't like the topic, have mistakes in reason pointed out, say and do unprincipled things or are just losing and argument.

This thread is an example of how unprincipled moderator action evolves.

In my first post to this thread I wrote 791 words regarding how I thought a union might work and offering suggestions that were well recieved by the OP. In 156 words I also mention that BAUT is open to criticism for unprincipled behavior.

I get a bandwagon of unprincipled statements and questions of who, what where and when from members and moderators trying to goad me into a response. I try to stay on topic but the case is pertinant to the topic. I answer the issue with some details of the case and am warned by a moderator for "hijacking" the thread.

The bandwagon of unprincipled behavior continues. It can happen in any thread because the moderators and owner don't appear to value or even understand simple principles of reason or of fair play such as allowing the accused to answer charges against him, face his accuser and cross examine witnesses against him.

I would consider the entire issue resolved as a matter of principle, Sort of a "Supreme Court" ruling as:

Resoulution

I would call this case resolved if the accused site rewrites its rules to avoid this kind of abuse in the future or to honestly reflect how it actually handled the cases.

Changes I would want.

Change Rule 13, paragraph one, last sentance which reads "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner." to read either, preferably "Direct questions must be answered but only once in a timely manner consistant with the timing of the poster's previously posts. Repeated questions, accidentally posted or not, that heve been answered must have an acknowledgement that the question has been answered." or
at leas honestly "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner even if repeatedly asked ad infinium. Answers need not be acknowledged even if the question is repeated." which is how the rule is being enforced now.

Change rule 17, Moderator Actions, second paragraph which now reads "If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed." To read either,preferably "If you disagree with a moderator action, discuss it politely it in public forum or PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed." or at least honestly as it is enforced "If you disagree with a moderator action, you may only PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator and do not criticise the moderator action in public forum even if it is blatently abusive or you can be banned." which is how the rule is currently applied.

Also be honest and add to the rules "Moderators are not required to give accused rule violators a hearing and that they can interpret the rules and make up rules arbitraily." which is how the site is run now. I don't want this to be the rule but if the rules of the site are not consistant with what I want they should at least reflect the actual actions of the site.

[Josh]

:doh:Dear, dear SAMU,

We tried to give you every sort of leeway. You were asked and then told not to continue with this line of discussion. I know you disagree with the way things are run here, you've mentioned it in numerous places. That doesn't change the fact that it is the way things are run here!

You have to learn to work within the rules instead of against them. I was truly hoping you'd try to PM me or another mod and have a proper chat about things, your concerns, the way forward. But you just had to rant from your soap box.

Rule 17 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845) clearly states, If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.
But then, you know that and you don't care. I'm sorry that you'll no doubt disagree with yet another moderator action that doesn't go in your favour, but this is where we find ourselves. After so many warnings, I'm sorry to say that I don't see any sort of future for you here.

[why06]

But then, you know that and you don't care. I'm sorry that you'll no doubt disagree with yet another moderator action that doesn't go in your favour, but this is where we find ourselves. After so many warnings, I'm sorry to say that I don't see any sort of future for you here.

SAMU Im trying to save you man. don't reply to this thread anymore. Stop ranting. Now your idea to ammend the rules was good. Go talk to a Mod about that NOW... Before things excalate any higher. Please SAMU.. DONT GET YOURSELF BANNED. Do what I say. Please.

[Josh]

Sorry, why06. He's already been banned.

[why06]

really? crap...:doh:

For how long?

[hhEb09'1]

For how long?BAUT BANNED posters log (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=30979&page=14) -- forever

[Van Rijn]

really? crap...:doh:

For how long?

Appears to be permanent this time. See here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1014845#post1014845

This wasn't a new complaint, we (regular BAUT members) have heard the same thing over and over.

[why06]

I can't help, but think is partially my falt :sad: ....

Okay, but I want you all to know that last post he made had some substance. Have you guys ever thought of revising the rules in that manner?

[antoniseb]

Have you guys ever thought of revising the rules in that manner?
Such options were discussed as we were creating the rules, but we settled on the rules we have. Frankly the change to rule 13 shouldn't be needed, because what SAMU suggested is our understanding of the rule anyway. The rule 17 suggestion is impractical, for reasons that may be obvious from SAMU's behavior. Our goal is to keep the forum about astronomy and spaceflight. His final rule about arbitrary creating of rules was merely a poke at us. He wanted to discuss things that were not about Astronomy and Spaceflight (i.e. his experiences in New Orleans after Katrina), and blame the moderators for limiting such discussions.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I want to add that, as we have many, many times in the past, we have given a poster a huge amount of leeway (some may say "rope"). We do this on purpose, because we'd rather err on the side of free discussion than stifle it.

But at some point it can be generally acknowledged that a given poster is no longer listening, or is behaving in an appropriate matter. To continue the analogy, they have run out of rope. SAMU was given many chances, but there is only so much rope. We (the admin and mods) discussed the rules at length, settling on them in such a way that the board can be run as smoothly as possible while still giving the posters as much room as possible for open discussion. The rules work pretty well.

I have been reading boards back since the days of USENET, and I will say that BAUT is the finest example of this compromise I can find; the balance between totally open discussion, which yields, inevitably, chaos (cough cough godlikeproductions cough cough); and completely stifled speech and rampant censorship such as that practiced by many creationist and, pardon the expression, woowoo boards, for example.

His complaints were, in my opinion, without merit. We see many ATM posters who feel like they are being treated unfairly, and it's plain to see that what they think is unfair, and what is truly unfair, are two very different things.

I support Josh's decision in this matter. This case is closed.

[Chuck]

Where will we all post after the iron boot of the union crushes this place?

[Maksutov]

Where will we all post after the iron boot of the union crushes this place?The Ministry of Love.

If you're really good, you get to post in Room 101.

Re[edit]I need help to find these oppressed users....Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the BAUT system! Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!Based on the response here, I'd say a renaming of your union might be in order, replacing the possessive form (although perhaps a clitic) of the first noun with another word of the same case that rhymes with "user"...

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[why06]

Where will we all post after the iron boot of the union crushes this place?

:sad: Ummm.. I wear suede...

[Maksutov]

:sad: Ummm.. I wear suede...Yeah, that's what they say until the contract is ratified.

Re another word of the same case that rhymes with "user"...Vanna, how about an "L"?

[jamini]

ReVanna, how about an "L"?

Can I buy a vowel? How about an "o"?

[Josh]

Mak,

I PMed you recently about not goading people into a fight. Why06 has only been supportive of actions taken here and of BAUT in general.

Your posting is offensive and unnecessary. Do it again and you'll find ourself locked out of BAUT for a while.

I think an apology is in order.

[Jim]

Mak, ...

I think an apology is in order.

That's two of us who think so.

[jamini]

I am herewith extending my own apology to anyone I may have offended by buying a vowel.

[Maksutov]

Mak,

I PMed you recently about not goading people into a fight. Why06 has only been supportive of actions taken here and of BAUT in general.

Your posting is offensive and unnecessary. Do it again and you'll find ourself locked out of BAUT for a while.

I think an apology is in order.I let my general feelings (based on experience) re unions get the better of me.

OK, I apologize to why06.

Sorry about that.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Josh http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1015617#post1015617)
Mak, ...

I think an apology is in order.That's two of us who think so.
See the previous post.

[Maksutov]

I am herewith extending my own apology to anyone I may have offended by buying a vowel.If you used a credit card, you could always just cancel the transaction.

[why06]

I let my general feelings (based on experience) re unions get the better of me.

OK, I apologize to why06.

Sorry about that.

Okay umm... thanks....:shifty:

[hhEb09'1]

Notice that SAMU has started his own user union (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/)

[davidlpf]

Notice that SAMU has started his own user union (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/)
looks like a lot of sour grapes to me.

[Noclevername]

Notice that SAMU has started his own user union (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/)


...And look at that, one of his main topics is badmouthing other sites. Hmm, I wonder which one will be first?

[Josh]

My use of "goading people into a fight" regarding Mak's actions might have been a bit strong. Mak isn't typically the go around and pick a fight kind of guy. What seems like a meaningless or simple jibe to one might seem like fighting words to another though so I guess we all have to be careful. Thanks, Mak, for making your apology and clearing things up.

edit: Just out of interest ... who is GrapesofWrath? Nice site hijacking :p (perhaps SAMU should have chosen the handle SourGrapesofWrath?)

[Gillianren]

edit: Just out of interest ... who is GrapesofWrath? Nice site hijacking :p (perhaps SAMU should have chosen the handle SourGrapesofWrath?)

That would be hhEB09'1, currently.

[Tobin Dax]

looks like a lot of sour grapes to me.

I'd say that Grapes was rather level-headed in his reply. Definitely not sour at all toward SAMU or his site.

Josh, his BAUT profile (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=55) should tell you who he is. (Not being a BABB member, it's understandable that you do know the kilopi story.)

[Edit] Darn it, I took too long to post this. There goes my fun. (In my reply to Josh, at least.)

[Edit again] Oh look, I made a thread about old BABB stuff:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=20553
Josh, the history of hhEb09'1 is in the first post of mickal's thread, where he talks about kilopi.

[hhEb09'1]

My post to SAMU's union board (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=6) tried to find the Rated Sites forum mentioned in How to propose sites for union ranking. (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=24) ("When a proposed site is listed the site will be ranked in the 'Rated sites' forum"), so I assumed that this Listed Sites forum is the appropriate one for such discussion, except it goes on to say "My union members may not post to that forum." I'm not sure about the procedure for the ranking of forums, so I'll just respond to this ranking.

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today

http://www.bautforum.com/

Membership 23,880

Allows public critcism of moderator actions...no. Bad 100%I disagree with this characterization. Clearly, BAUT allows public criticism, it's visible. The criteria would have to be reworded to say "Allows ALL public criticism..." before BAUT would fail. And I don't think that that (ALL) is a reasonable stance.

Bans members for publc critcisms of moderators...yes. Bad 100%Again, that's open to interpretation. I don't know of a single instance where the banning from BAUT was just a direct result of public criticism

Owner reversals of moderator actions...none. Bad 100%The owner is a mod, and there have been reversals--some of the owner's own actions even.

Deletes posts of critcisms...no. good 100%

Allows benign discussion of my user union on the site...yes. good100%

Follows the rules of their site?...no. bad100%Yes, they do follow the rules. You may disagree with their interpretation, but that is the issue at hand. If they can be convinced that they have violated a rule, they will change their action.

Moderation of off topic posts...poor. bad100%BAUT allows a lot of off topic discussion, so this ranking stands as far as I am concerned--but I find it incredible that you find it a bad thing, since your grievance mostly stems from your discussion about hurricane Katrina on an astronomy board!!

Moderation of spelling errors..some. bad100%No, spelling errors are definitely not a priority of the mods on BAUT

Moderation of grammar errors...some. bad100%Again, grammar errors are definitely not a priority of the mods on BAUT

Grievances filed with my user union...One http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=4

Status of grievance...unresolved. Bad 100%

Replies to grievance from accused site...none. Bad 100%I guess you have a reply now. :)

Let's see, that would make the final BAUT score 9 good 2 bad, wouldn't it? That's as good as this site--except for the unresolved grievance thing, which come to think of it should be added to your score, as a negative, don't you think?

[why06]

LOL. I do not agree with the way he ranked this site either. he had alternative motivations. You see this is why on user shouldn't rate a site....

When I come back after I got everything straightened out at my site. I would like to hold a poll on this site to rank you on what you like and what you don't like.

Any suggestions on what a site should be polled on?

[R.A.F.]

Mak isn't typically the go around and pick a fight kind of guy.

Naw...Mak is more of the look at the Space Cows kind of guy. :)

[R.A.F.]

Notice that SAMU has started his own user union (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/)

Why didn't he just call it Complaining about BAUT??

Wonder how long it will take for him to start ranting about Katrina?

[Musashi]

You know, that is a funny thing. He could have started his own site long ago. There he could have posted whatever he wanted about Katrina and he would not have needed to worry about moderation.

[korjik]

Does anyone know why people just wont let things go? Between SAMU pushing the issue to a banning, and the several multi-sock puppet people, why do they stay?

[Musashi]

Probably a desire to be right (in other people's eyes).

[Noclevername]

Does anyone know why people just wont let things go? Between SAMU pushing the issue to a banning, and the several multi-sock puppet people, why do they stay?


Pure stubbornness. Plus, many of them like to argue (or should I say, feel a need to argue, since some push it way past the point of pleasure into flat-out obsession).

[Len Deighton]

Well, I think some things to think about include, where does the power of a union come from?

There are some overly romanticized answers to this that I am sure some here will be willing to give (I am sure because they have already given these answers in other threads), but which do not reflect a sound grounding in economics.

The more traditional kind of union, a labor union, derives its power from its ability to control the labor supply. In effect, it acts as a monopoloy supplier of labor. If it doesn't have that control, it has nothing; it can't do anything for its members then. A union which lets anyone work who wants to work, at whatever wage that individual is willing to work for, is a union with no power. However, a union which can restrict the quantity of labor supplied at a given price, is able to negotiate a higher price for each unit of labor that is supplied. (Or if you prefer, better conditions, which is really the same thing.)

That said, whence the power of the users' union? It sounds to me like it would have none. What valuable resource would this users' union control?

[Tucson_Tim]

Pure stubbornness.

Sounds like a New England Yankee trait to me! :)

[Noclevername]

Sounds like a New England Yankee trait to me! :)


Yes, but it's counterbalanced by a solid layer of apathy.

[Tucson_Tim]

Yes, but it's counterbalanced by a solid layer of apathy.

Hey, I've got the apathy market cornered! :)

[Noclevername]

Hey, I've got the apathy market cornered! :)


Eh, you win. I can't be bothered cornering a market.

[davidlpf]

I'd say that Grapes was rather level-headed in his reply. Definitely not sour at all toward SAMU or his site.

Josh, his BAUT profile (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=55) should tell you who he is. (Not being a BABB member, it's understandable that you do know the kilopi story.)

[Edit] Darn it, I took too long to post this. There goes my fun. (In my reply to Josh, at least.)

[Edit again]
Josh, the history of hhEb09'1 is in the first post of mickal's thread, where he talks about kilopi.
Tobin I was saying SAMU had sour grapes, and I was making joke towards hhEb09'1 old handle.(I guess the joke back fired)
edited to add: Also I did not now if Grapesofwraith wanted SAMU to know he was a member here or what name his name here was.

[Jim]

His "greivance" is a hoot! And, it's got at least two errors in it.

I posted a request (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?p=47#47) that he correct it. If he doesn't, should I file a complaint?

[Josh]

He locked the thread (http://myuserunion.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=6) hhEb09'1 posted in. Looks a lot like he's stifling discussion. Curbing criticism. He's said that discussion is only between mods and the aggrieved. But there is GrapesofWrath wanting to discuss things. So ... what we really have there is someone wanting something that is in opposition to the rules of that site.

Wasn't that pretty much what he didn't like about BAUT (at least we have a clearly accessible rule set. His aren't even written, clearly defined rules - more like a rule that was made up on the spot)? Shouldn't SAMU change his rules to suit GrapesofWrath, or any other user who comes along?

I know you can read this SAMU. You must see now the futility of what you were asking.

[Tucson_Tim]

Do I understand this correctly?

why06 came to this site looking for members and ideas for a website that he was building. The only convert was a disgruntled member of this forum, samu, who, in a tiff, went off and built his own website using why06's ideas. :confused:

Sorry, but I'm too lazy and uninterested to investigate fully myself.

[davidlpf]

Do I understand this correctly?


pretty much, I think SAMUs rules are different then why06s rules.

[Tucson_Tim]

Seems a bit unethical to me. :whistle:

[Jim]

"Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery."
Me

[peter eldergill]

I lost utter respect for SAMU when he would not repsond to a poster because he was not a moderator. (Not that I had much respect to begin with)

It came across as "you're not worthy to give me an opinion, so I'll ignore you"

Not my favourite attitude from anybody (especially since I've had this attitude from some students in my school, who walk by you as if you don't exist), and I've no time for someone like that

Pete

[Paul Beardsley]

I've just checked out the link to SAMUs union site.

Can you have a union of one? I suppose you can if you're self-employed.

Will anybody other than BAUTers read it?

I don't know what he's trying to achieve, but I doubt he's impressing many people. "I got kicked off BAUT, but I don't care, I'm not bitter, in fact it's their loss, and in any case I banned them for a while, in fact I so don't care about it that I've written a whole website to complain about how unfair my treatment was, and if anybody writes in to point out my errors I'll lock the thread. Honestly, I really don't care that BAUT banned me. And no, I'm not protesting too much."

I feel a bit sorry for why06, as this fiasco is distracting from his serious project.

[Tucson_Tim]

I feel a bit sorry for why06, as this fiasco is distracting from his serious project.

Yes. How true.

[SeanF]

I feel a bit sorry for why06, as this fiasco is distracting from his serious project.
I would suggest, though, that why06 take a good hard look at this situation, because people of SAMU's persuasion are exactly the kind of people who will be the most noticable "contributors" to his union.

[Paul Beardsley]

I would suggest, though, that why06 take a good hard look at this situation, because people of SAMU's persuasion are exactly the kind of people who will be the most noticable "contributors" to his union.

Yes, that's a valid point.

The idea of a union becomes less and less credible.

ETA: I bet it's only a matter of time before SAMU gets banned from his own website.