What GROKLAW has become

quality_not_compromis

September 17, 2004

Been to GROKLAW lately?

While Pamela Jones undoubtedly runs a first class act, unfortunately, her audience is ruining things for her. You can't even ask a simple, unassuming question without being called a troll. The level of intolerance is astounding.

Then there's the awkward moderation policy. Some posts are worthy of the trash can, but they are left to stay. While more worthy posts are deleted. It would help matters if GROKLAW had a uniform delete policy. By not doing so, some people may wonder why their post was deleted without explanation.

I find this board a bit more tolerant. While the signal-to-noise ratio is high, sometimes I do want to hear someone's cantankerous rant. It helps me form a good mental image of their state of mind.

GROKLAW is much too formal for this kind of behaviour. It's much more like a British Bankers Club with a bunch of pedantic geeks quibbling. Formal in appearance, yet informal when it comes to respecting a dissenting opinion. At least here you have voices of moderation, like al_petrofsky, TomFrayne, et al, that respond respectfully to even the most stupid of posts.

Please don't construe this as an attack on PJ. I have a very high opinion of her. However, her audience is what is lowering my opinion. I find my wanting to post is waning just because of the idiocy I witness sometimes. The only reason for me to read GROKLAW now is to read posts by PJ, Quatermass, AllParadox, and webster. Otherwise, I'd ignore the site.

07:23 pm

Re: What GROKLAW has become

b29651

September 19, 2004

i had to think on this before replying to it
scox is know to be very aggressive litigators
suing seems to be a game to fud their stock and draw attention in anyway they can
astroturfers are a know tactic of M$ so why wouldnt scox do this to *salt* the posts with things that scox could sue for defamation or whatever their creative lawyers could dream up
groklaw has been very effective in telling the story for the linux community side but we have also told the other side even when sometimes we wanted to scream with frustration.the posts that i personally have seen deleted contained things that had offensive language in them or were obvious flamebaiters to side track discussions
there are posts that disagree with our points of view still on groklaw.the ones that some refer to (not directed toward anyone)*might* contain comments that could trigger lawsuits because they are too rough accusing fraud or such toward scox and to avoid the possibility of lawsuit and keeping the site up the value has to be weighed by the moderator and i would think PJ has final say in that?
do we want PJ spending time to defend the site so that groklaw becomes another wookie and cant spend enough time disecting scox vs the other cases?
these are questions that have to be weighed and faced?
choices are sometimes hard to make
for myself delete any that are doubtful and keep the eye on the ball(scox)
respectfully br3n

09:20 am

Re: What GROKLAW has become

heimdal31

September 19, 2004

<<groklaw has been very effective in telling the story for the linux community side but we have also told the other side even when sometimes we wanted to scream with frustration.the posts that i personally have seen deleted contained things that had offensive language in them or were obvious flamebaiters to side track discussions
there are posts that disagree with our points of view still on groklaw.the ones that some refer to (not directed toward anyone)*might* contain comments that could trigger lawsuits because they are too rough accusing fraud or such toward scox and to avoid the possibility of lawsuit and keeping the site up the value has to be weighed by the moderator and i would think PJ has final say in that?>>

I do agree that PJ has the final say. That doesn't mean that someone that cares about what PJ has created shouldn't say something if they feel decisions are being made that could be detrimental in the long run. As I said in my original post, I understand why the deletion (and the tricking of the poster into thinking their post had not been deleted) policy was implemented. I even think that it can be effective in meeting that purpose--however, I am personally bothered by the fake deletions. I realize that may be because I'm a bit too libertarian when it comes to free speech.

I do think that an unfortunate side effect of the deletion policy has been to homogenize Groklaw a bit too much. Right now, that is probably a strength, but I fear (perhap incorrectly) that going forward it may become a detriment. I do know that I have seen posts disappear that in my mind do not fall into the above categories. (Not my own. The only post I ever had disappear were because of legal concerns that PJ had and I fully understand and support why she deleted that post.)

<<do we want PJ spending time to defend the site so that groklaw becomes another wookie and cant spend enough time disecting scox vs the other cases?>>

Absolutely not. Nor do I want to see Groklaw fall into meta-discussions about how Groklaw is run. But, I do think there may be some value in occasional meta-discussion and a bit more openess. However, I do agree it is PJ's site and that even now she is running it better than I ever could dream of attaining.

<<these are questions that have to be weighed and faced?>>

Agreed.

<<choices are sometimes hard to make
for myself delete any that are doubtful and keep the eye on the ball(scox)>>

Actually, I think the deletion policy could set them up for more danger from lawsuits. By deleting in the way Groklaw is doing, you are admitting that you are in part removing content that could be libelous. I'm willing to bet that puts you in a worse permission in court if you do fail to remove a libelous comment. In other words, if you delete nothing, you could use that as a defense and say that you will delete if you get a complaint. But if your policy is to try to protect others from libel and you fail to do so, you could be in a less defensible position.

02:10 pm

Re: What GROKLAW has become

spamsux99

September 19, 2004

>As I said in my original post, I understand
>why the deletion (and the tricking of the
>poster into thinking their post had not been
>deleted) policy was implemented. I even think
>that it can be effective in meeting that
>purpose--however, I am personally bothered by
>the fake deletions. I realize that may be
>because I'm a bit too libertarian when it
>comes to free speech.

Again, has anyone else experienced or confirmed this "fake deletion" phenomenon at groklaw other than heimdal31?

I have experienced 1 post of mine on groklaw being "moderated" from view of anyone but myself, but all of my other posts remained visible, logged in or not, from the same IP address, and I was offered an explanation.

03:42 pm

Hidden posts on Groklaw

al_petrofsky

September 19, 2004

> has anyone else experienced or confirmed this "fake
> deletion" phenomenon at groklaw other than heimdal31?

Yes. Infosecgroupie reported it a while back, and heimdal31
and w4rmc47 confirmed it for me when I was recently the
target.

From August 27 to September 5 I made eight posts to groklaw,
all on-topic to the threads in which they were posted.

None of them were deleted, but no one responded to any of
them, which was surprising and a bit mysterious. In one
case, just below one of my posts (about emergency motion
rules in the District of Nevada) an anonymous post appeared
that was obviously plagiarized from mine (or from a similar
post I made at Yahoo). My post generated zero responses
while the anonymous post generated two, without anyone
commenting on the similarity between my post and the
anonymous one.

I finally discovered that I had been wasting my time talking
to no one. The posts were only being included in pages
generated for connections that were either logged in as me
or were coming from my internet address.

I sent PJ and MathFox three emails asking if there was a
technical problem or if groklaw was intentionally deceiving
me into thinking the posts were publicly viewable. PJ
replied each time, but consistently ignored the question,
while giving conflicting answers about whether the posts
were deleted at all. MathFox remained silent. I conclude
that groklaw is indeed programmed to deceive people like
this, but PJ and MathFox are not honest enough to admit it.

Please see the deleted posts and the email about them at
scofacts.org/groklaw.html

I'm pointing all this out (1) so that people will know not
to assume that groklaw is actually propagating their posts
unless they've checked on this from other locations and (2)
so that people can see some of the deleted posts and have
some data to form an impression of what the criteria for
deletion are in practice. (I think a much better way for
people to know this would be for posts to be marked
something like slashdot's -1, instead of being deleted, with
an option allowing people to peruse the -1 posts
occasionally if they're curious. If this actually created a
storage space problem, the -1 posts could be automatically
deleted after some number of days.)

Call me a fool for not realizing what was happening sooner,
but for ten days there I really thought I was contributing
to a discussion and not just talking to myself. I will now
be following PJ's surprising advice (see her first email
reply) to "redirect [my] energy into more positive channels"
rather than attempting to contribute to groklaw.

04:53 pm

You picked the fight with Groklaw, Al

bindicap

September 19, 2004

Not sure what to say to you, Al. You worked hard for the accomplishment you proudly report. I note the complete absence of any desire to patch things up in your message.

Since you've so ably chronicled your peculiar view of Groklaw's faults, I figure i might as well show you a (very uncharitable) view of your own actions. From my own limited experience, I have completely no sympathy for someone who can't get along with PJ in email.

Apparently PJ was uncomfortable hosting audio from the Nevada hearing until she could be sure to maintain good relations with the court, so you flamed her even as you said several other people were hosting it instead and availability was good. I read she contacted a lawyer and the court herself to get a definitive opinion, and you flamed her for that too, of all things, instead of bending to your say-so. When she pointed out "no ruling on whether to transfer ... moot at this time" despite your report that it was denied, you then flamed her for that. Thereafter you flip-flopped back and forth, alternately showing her up or pretending to apologize. In the final order we see after all that it was never so clear -- the order submitted by one side was hand edited by the judge because of the confusing situation. Then some days after I presume that PJ had finally gotten her own assurances from the court by phone and Groklaw had posted a transcript, you decided to post a letter from the court saying the same thing with a smarmy annotation by you.

You flamed PJ in private email and publicly on boards. You even smugly wrote "I'm such an ass" (or very similar) as you posted one such message for all to see. So you decided to champion a nitpick and smear campaign to malign Groklaw as you posted bait to make trouble. Now you report today that you accomplished all you could hope for there. Surely you're not really surprised?

I'm actually posting all this only because I think that Al is at base a sharp guy who can learn and make changes on reflection, and so there is a small possibility for positive development. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't bother.

09:31 pm

Re: fight with Groklaw (1/2)

al_petrofsky

September 19, 2004

> Since you've so ably chronicled your peculiar view of
> Groklaw's faults, I figure i might as well show you a
> (very uncharitable) view of your own actions.

Thank you. This is helpful feedback.

> From my own limited experience, I have completely no
> sympathy for someone who can't get along with PJ in email.

I also had a limited experience (April to July) of getting
along with PJ in email.

> Apparently PJ was uncomfortable hosting audio from the
> Nevada hearing until she could be sure to maintain good
> relations with the court, so you flamed her even as you
> said several other people were hosting it instead and
> availability was good.

I didn't have a problem with her being cautious. As I wrote
to her:

> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:29:39 -0700

> I can appreciate that you're more timid. For one thing,
> if you're really paranoid (which you do have some reason
> to be), you have to assume I'm lying and that I actually
> snuck a recorder into the courtroom. I don't begrudge you
> wanting to get information directly from the court.

I did have a problem with her spreading FUD around to other
people hosting the audio, without giving any legal reason
for it (that's the sort of behavior I thought we all shared
a distaste for).

> I read she contacted a lawyer and the court herself to get
> a definitive opinion, and you flamed her for that too, of
> all things, instead of bending to your say-so.

I have no idea what you're construing as being a flame for
those actions.

[continued in child posting]

10:53 pm

Re: fight with Groklaw (2/2)

al_petrofky

September 19, 2004

[continued from parent]

> When she pointed out "no ruling on whether to transfer
> ... moot at this time" despite your report that it was
> denied, you then flamed her for that.

I flamed her for claiming I "did damage to linux" without
having any evidence of that.

The motion was clearly never "moot". See message #155174.

> Thereafter you flip-flopped back and forth, alternately
> showing her up or pretending to apologize. In the final
> order we see after all that it was never so clear -- the
> order submitted by one side was hand edited by the judge
> because of the confusing situation.

Read the letters at scofacts.org/AZ-2004-08-03.pdf
As SCO's counsel and I both correctly deduced from the
hearing, Judge Jones's intent was to deny the motion.
AutoZone and PJ (who, after the September 9 hearing, both
have a record of pretty badly misreading Judge Jones)
thought otherwise, which is why Jones had to correct
AutoZone's order.

> Then some days after I presume that PJ had finally gotten
> her own assurances from the court by phone and Groklaw had
> posted a transcript, you decided to post a letter from the
> court saying the same thing with a smarmy annotation by
> you.

"Saying the same thing"? The letter stated that the audio
could be distributed freely. When did Groklaw ever say
that? And why does groklaw continue not to make the audios
(two of them at this point) available nor to let people know
they are available? (All while PJ continues to download
them from scofacts, and even to use the scofacts August 9
transcript without attribution. Where's the caution there?)

> You flamed PJ in private email and publicly on boards. You
> even smugly wrote "I'm such an ass" (or very similar) as
> you posted one such message for all to see.

As I pointed out in that message, #155174, my smarminess is
not as asinine as PJ's unfounded (and never retracted)
accusation that my accurate report "did damage".

> So you decided to champion a nitpick and smear campaign to
> malign Groklaw as you posted bait to make trouble. Now you
> report today that you accomplished all you could hope for
> there. Surely you're not really surprised?

I really was surprised, which is why it took me so long to
catch on. I would have been less surprised had she simply
started deleting all my posts. I wasn't expecting the
deception.

> I'm actually posting all this only because I think that Al
> is at base a sharp guy who can learn and make changes on
> reflection, and so there is a small possibility for
> positive development. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't
> bother.

Thank you for the compliment. I originally had a similar
opinion of PJ, but to date she has never acknowledged any of
these errors.

10:56 pm