October 04 2004
Shouldn't that be:
"we actually had 475 comments, but I deleted all the proSCO ones!"
11:50 AM EDT
By Groklaw Lurker
October 04 2004
You know, in all the time I've been reading Groklaw I've only actually seen two
comments vanish 'almost before my eyes' so to speak. In both cases, the comments
were most definitely 100% pure FUD. I don't really think very many comments are
actually removed for failing the 'FUD Free' test. If there are, it certainly
12:30 PM EDT
October 04 2004
"Sunday's story wasn't even about SCO. I haven't ever removed any pro-SCO
comments that I am aware of. I just couldn't resist horsing around, after
reading all the lying astroturfing that goes on about Groklaw elsewhere, which
someone else was nice enough to tell me about."
Ah, yes. Slashdot and their many "PJ deletes..." claims. "I
know for a fact that..." they often begin, and of course neglect to provide
the aforementioned facts.
Here are the only relevant 'facts' about 'disappearing' posts:
• The moderators here abide by the simple rules you see above the 'submit
comment' button. That's it. Really. Actually, the very first bullet point is
the only guideline necessary: stay polite and don't troll.
• If you swear, your post will disappear. Head-spinningly fast. 'Soft'
swearing is sometimes tolerated if the bulk of you post is informative or
topical, but why risk it? Having PJ notice you for your clever verbiage is a
lot nicer than getting busted for a potty mouth.
• Argue your case Marriott style, not Hatch style. Hatch-style posts (fist +
table = pound!) are loud, irritating, and prime candidates for the neuralizer.
(I have nightmares about Marriott and Hatch switching legal teams. If they do,
I'm grabbing my SCO shares and going long!).
• Have fun with posts, but watch the imagery. There was this one time... at
band camp... Ahem, you see what I mean (and I risk deletion here by illustrating
the point thusly). I recall a time when I posted something and then realized
minutes later that I would have to moderate myself -- except someone else
moderated it first. (Now *that's* efficiency.) Try to post as if your
grandmother is watching over your shoulder... Yes, there are grandmothers
reading Groklaw (take that, Slashdot, and your 15-35 demographic!).
• PJ has the final say. Ultimately, the site *must* reflect her standards and
travel in the direction she maps out. Try to put yourself in her position and
really consider the many issues that need to be juggled daily when running a
busy website. If your post gets deleted for reasons unknown, don't take
offense. Getting mad (and getting even) is only going to make things worse.
Figure out why it happened (no MIT rocket scientist required) and next time post
Finally, this whole vibe (astroturfing, whatever) about pro-SCO posts getting
deleted -- it's laughable. I've just outlined the main reasons why a post might
get deleted, but if you could see how *few* posts per article get removed (and
most of those are for the language rule), you'd realize how baseless these
Amusing, also, is the person (you know who you are) who posted to Geeklog's
forums about the mechanics of Groklaw's post behaviour, and how there must be a
glitch in Geeklog itself. Geeklog is working just fine. Mathfox and his code
monkeys know exactly what they're doing.
02:28 PM EDT
October 04 2004
Yes, that's the link.
Nothing nefarious happening there, and apologies in return if I implied such. I
just found it curious that someone was trying to rule out a certain behaviour as
being a bug -- presumably so that it can be proven to be a function? Who knows.
Maybe it was the "Groklaw conspiracy theory" subject line, or perhaps
I've been reading too many sour-grapes type posts recently.
In any case, Mathfox would be the one to ask. I know nothing about Geeklog
except that it has proven to be an outstanding piece of FOSS.
03:52 PM EDT
October 04 2004
I have seen your comments. I will do you the honor of telling you how I really feel honestly. I frankly think that my policies are nobody's business, not to put too fine a point on it. You are unlikely to have the whole picture, for one thing. It's my decision to make. The discussion, fueled, I have absolutely no doubt by you know who, was counterproductive and pointless. We're not voting on this. It's my decision to make, and I've made it. I won't be changing my mind.
Groklaw doesn't need to be any bigger than it is to do what it needs to do, so if anyone thinks it is so vital they need to argue such minutia in public, it's better if they go set up their own web site and leave mine alone. If I don't want certain behavior here, it's not going to be here. It's that simple. I don't feel the need to explain every last reason for the decisions I make. For one thing, sometimes it would embarrass other people if I told their bad behavior to the world. They may do things like that with nasty web sites telling half the story or less, and such, but I won't behave in such a smarmy way. I believe it's important to treat others, even people you don't much like or admire, with a measure of dignity. There are standards on Groklaw. You have to abide by them if you want to be here.
I have to consider many things that you don't even give a thought to, because you are not the one responsible in the end. I am. My conscience has to be satisfied, and my sense of what is ethical. I want to be proud of Groklaw and the standard it abides by. There are legal considerations also. But mainly, it's my sense of what I want my name on. Anyone who doesn't have the ability to see what really matters in a fight as serious as this one the community is in isn't moderation policies, or wishes to get into miniwars internally, doesn't know how to fight to win.
09:20 PM EDT
October 05 2004
It is very simple. Let's analogize. What if a guy sent in some code to Linus, and he got turned down. Linus doesn't like the code. He thinks it's ugly or just not what he wants in the kernel for any number of reasons. What if the guy then takes offense and starts a public campaign that openness means that his code has to be accepted, or Linus' claim to openness and honesty are bogus.
Get it now?
Linus has standards. Linux is his vision, and he knows where he wants it to go. If your code doesn't fit in, it doesn't get in. Does that mean Linux isn't open and fair and honest? No. It means Linus gets the final decision, because it's his kernel and his vision. And because there has to be somebody who makes those decisions. The person who came up with the creative new idea, has demonstrated skill, and does the majority of the work gets to be the one. It's really only fair.
It's no different here. I started Groklaw with a vision. I know what I want it to be and where I want it to go. I work like a dog on it, every day, day after day, and for absolutely nothing in return. Nothing but to realize the purpose. Others may have different ideas, but I get the final decision. And once I've made it, I won't change it because of a grouch campaign. At that point, it's no one's business, because the decision has been made. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to listen or wish to stomp on creativity. On the contrary. I depend upon it and enjoy it. But it has to fit into the vision and the purpose and my standards of excellence.
So, to those who have been having trouble meeting those standards, I suggest that instead of pouting or finding fault, you strive to meet the standards. You are very welcome if you do. That includes the Bitter Groklaw Exiles. : )
05:54 AM EDT
In from the cold
By Tim Ransom
October 05 2004
Yep. I posted to Geeklog to ask them about whether the 'only I can see my posts'
vapourhack had any basis in reality. My reason? To put an end to the endless
whining and accusations on Yahoo SCOX. I do know who I am, having signed the
aforementioned post with my name.
The BGLE on Yahoo SCOX *demanded* I write PJ and/or Mathfox to get an 'answer'.
However, since PJ had apparently already said there was no hack involved, and I
don't run errands for petulant trolls, I told them there was no way I would bug
either PJ ot Mathfox about it. So I wrote Geeklog. The answers given there
didn't stop them. I get the impression nothing (including facts) will:
A couple of the BGLE have websites dedicated to their thumbsucking and, although
they all claim to be some kind of OSS $something_stupid, they have illegally
reproduced private email exchanges with PJ as 'evidence' of their amorphous
accusations. Another one quoted an entire entry from my blog veratim with no
attribution, in breach of the creative commons license I use. So, apparently,
they feel that their personal quests are not only more important than the battle
at hand, they also feel that the law only applies to others.
At any rate, I continue to plague them there. That the rot reached here is
testimony to the interminable stink they raise.
Going back in ...
12:54 PM EDT
Copyright 2004 http://www.groklaw.net/