Jordo Media RSS / Atom Feed Directory

I take back what I said.

I suggested to the FM that the rule about spoilers be extended by a day or two,
since most television viewers on the BBS have DVR's now.

Still, getting deleted from not using headers is frustrating, and has kept me,
among others, for bothering to post in there anymore.

I like the headers in the forum, but I am not a fan of harsh sanctions for
forgetting them.  In any case, the FM is welcome to propose changes at any
time.

Agreed.

As someone who was regularly deleted for forgetting the headers rule, and then
for awhile deleted for going out of my way to remember the headers rule and in
doing so not formatting my headers in a manner pleasant to the FM's fancy, I'm
all for nuking the headers rule.

If it wasn't a rule, almost nobody would do it. Hell, I wouldn't, and I like
the headers, hah. 'Cept when I forget to type one. Rargh, and now I'm angry!
Down with headers!

No one is saying that users shouldn't be able to post headers.
Just that users shouldn't be sanctioned for not doing so.  Please use headers,
by choice, all the time in other forums.

I know I for one am thrilled by the idea of having to read a few lines of a
post to realize I don't give a crap about the post. "Oh, it's a post about
Heroes. If only I had known ahead of time." It's a minor inconvenience at best,
a welcome thing to anyone that doesn't watch Heroes (or lost). Sort of kidding.

But whatever.

It's not much work to add a header, I agree.
But it's really, really easy to forget, since (as far as I know) no other forum
on the BBS requires them, even forums that might encompass a number of
different topics at once (Pro Sports>, Cinema>, for example).  And really it
doesn't seem to me like something users should be sanctioned for.

We're trying to make the BBS friendlier, not more restrictive, and this seems
counter to that, especially when users can be deleted for something like "Hey,
did anyone see the last episode of House," as their first sentence.

Maybe she could get the ball rolling by submitting an FI change.  That seems
like the first logical step.

For what it's worth, it's not a big deal to require or not require headers,
IMO.  It's not that much extra work, but it's not like the scroll is high
enough that you'd be confused as far as which show is being discussed.  The
only benefit I see is that if someone writes a blurb on a show that sounds
interesting to me, having the name of the show at the top of the post allows me
to look into it with more ease.

I agree with DesCartes.  I talked to the FM about this a while ago, and she
said that she didn't think that it was a bad idea, but that her hands were kind
of tied in the situation, that she had to moderate Television> the way that the
Sysops want, so I don't know if she really wants to keep it that way, or if she
just doesn't understand that she is the one who needs to propose the change to
the Sysops.

At any rate, it's time for that requirement to go.  I've seen so many people
complaining about getting deleted from Television> repeatedly that a number of
people, myself included, don't bother participating on that forum anymore.

How can we go about changing the policy to require use of headers in
Television>?
Is it still necessary?  Why was it implemented to begin with?  Higher scroll
than now?

I think you might be confusing "notification" with "record."

A deletion record isn't notification of a deletion, it's just a record of what
users have been deleted for what posts.  If you had to visualize it, think of
it like this:

USERA      LBN>   NO SOURCE
USERA      UNIX>  OFF-TOPC
USERB      ADMIN> DISCUSSING POLICY
USERC      BABBLE> SAYING "BOOB"

and so on and so forth.  It's exactly what "deletion record" means.

A deletion notification, on the other hand, is when you tell a user you have
deleted their post.
That's not a record of deletions, just a notification.

A sysop actually responded in 65 to agree with me BTW, so I can understand why
you'd be "done"

I'm done - Knightshade believes I clearly violeted confidentiality policy with
my FM posts and Copper Chris thinks there is no way on earth those should be
considered deletion records.

Yet both, on opposite sides of the coin, think the policy on what is or is not
a deletion record is cut and dried, clear as a bell.

And yet - the policy is just fine the way it is.

How can anyone discuss any of this with either of you involved. I dunno. So I'm
not.

From Admin>...

Sep 22, 2009 11:50 from Matrix

Copper... I still do think that an FM posting who was deleted and why isn't
violating policy and that the policy presented a few posts backs could be read
that way. Certainly there have been MANY FM posts that name users by name,
after posts have been deleted - and this has been going on since I joined
ISCABBS - and it has not been considered confidential info.

THAT said - in this particular case - Pecc waived his confidentiality anyway.

THAT said - I'd be in favor of clearing up policy to state that all public
posts are public - can be reposted by others in admin forums - and that FM
sanctions should be made public if the FM wants to talk about it.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25050 (15 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 11:53 from Matrix

Yeah lets play shuffle the topic around until it dies. Are you in training to
be Tanj or something Brock?

I mean unless you think this discussion is killing some other topic that needs
to be in here... let me know.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25051 (14 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 11:56 from Knightshade

Sep 22, 2009 11:50 from Matrix

Copper... I still do think that an FM posting who was deleted and why isn't
violating policy and that the policy presented a few posts backs could be read
that way.







It really can't, unless said user has already posted about it.

[Administrative Issues> msg #25052 (13 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:07 from Matrix

Except - it's been done for decades as an FM post without even you bitching
about it.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25053 (12 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:08 from Copper Lethe

I don't recall it ever being done.

[Administrative Issues> msg #25054 (11 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:09 from Matrix

Really? Nothing like...

OK - Enough is enough. Matrix, Knightshade, Copper Lethe - you three need to
take this to x's and stop with the flaming. Posts have been deleted and this is
your warning. KNOCK IT OFF!

Hell I've seen dozens of FM posts like that - some even with my name in them.

Heck I have made of few of them too in TMR and Underground>.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25055 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:13 from Copper Lethe

"Posts have been deleted," sure.  Telling users who you have deleted and why,
in an FM post, without consulting those users?  Nope.

[Administrative Issues> msg #25056 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:15 from Brock Gonad

I routinely see FMs post a mass deletion notice and say, "if you have posts
missing, it's becaue I deleted them, consider this your official warning."

[Administrative Issues> msg #25057 (8 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:15 from Matrix

I'm sorry but even in my example - the users who know was deleted and why.

With our current RSS feed, they can now even dig up the posts and read them.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25058 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:18 from Sparky
Well, not even the dumbest, most narcissistic FM is stupid enough to tell you,
"The following has been deleted because you just made an ass out of me"!
[Administrative Issues> msg #25059 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:20 from Copper Lethe

Your example was make believe.

What Brock described is closer to what happens, and as far as I know, there's
no rule about announcing that you've made a deletion.  The who/why is the
information you need permission from the user to post.

Knowing that a post was there, and now it isn't, via RSS, is not at all the
same thing as the FM telling users who they have sanctioned and why.
Particularly in a mass deletion situation, where users who realize that they've
gotten out of hand go back and clean up their own shit.


[Administrative Issues> msg #25060 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:20 from Brock Gonad

To the contrary, when I was an FM here, a user who was also an FM posted
something off-topic in one of my rooms.  I deleted her and informed her of why,
and she disputed it vehemently.  I told her that I felt my decision was correct
and taht she'd have to ask for a review if she disagreed.  She responded that
if I was going to be like that, she'd just delete me from HER room, and she
promptly went through all 150 posts and deleted everything I had posted, send
me an FM warning taht it was all off topic, and then X'd me and told me to
appeal it if I didn't like it.

[Administrative Issues> msg #25061 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:23 from Copper Lethe

That's AWESOME

[Administrative Issues> msg #25062 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:23 from Matrix

So you agree Copper that the definition of what is or is not a deletion record
is pretty vague? Or you think it's pretty cut and dry.

Also, please don't write off my example as imaginary just because you can't
remember it happening. I'm not writing off your long term memory when I tell
you that *I* *HAVE* *MADE* *FM* *POSTS* *LIKE* *THAT* - and nobody bitched
about it being a violation of anything.

And please note, FM posts get read by Sysops too.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25063 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:27 from Knightshade
So you're admitting you clearly violated the explicit confidentiality rules and
got away with it?

Uh, good for you I guess.



In the dozens of forums I FMed over the years however anytime I made an FM
headered post I did not call out deleted users by name, ever.
[Administrative Issues> msg #25064 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Sep 22, 2009 12:24 from Copper Lethe

"So you agree Copper that the definition of what is or is not a deletion record
is pretty vague? Or you think it's pretty cut and dry."

A deletion record is very cut and dry.
The the record of deletions of posts made by any give user.  It really doesn't
get any more cut and dry than that.  It's such a simple term that I don't think
it needs a definition.

When you say "I've made deletions, if your post is gone, you know why," this
isn't a "deletion record."  I can even see if you say "Matrix, Copper Lethe,
knock it off.  Deletions were made in this mess, if your post is gone, that's
why," that it's vague enough that it would probably be okay.

A deletion record isn't really a tangible thing, though, since no such document
exists, except for any information that FM's may keep track of on their own.

[Administrative Issues> msg #25065 (0 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Not that it's relevant in this forum, an editorial is different than a news
article that editorializes. Even though that shouldn't be a distinction. An
editorial minces no meat about being pure unadulterated opinion and or
hyperbole. News article that may, intentionallay or not, show some sort of
opinion or bias is still a news article. So, the post, in fact, was a news
article. If it was the opinion of somebody that somebody's opinion, as opposed
to facts expressly, was evident, it was not apparent to me. Furthermore, since
it is a news source, it was a news article.

So, I am not "going on" about that past incident, rather using it as an example
why sometimes it's not worth it when the sysops didn't/wouldn't do anything
about unfair deletions. I don't bother posting in that particular forum or even
viewing it since the submission of articles is subject to the FM's bias.

Well said Dr. Memory. I was thinking the same damn thing myself.

It's only a damn shame this BBS haad to all but die before the buttholes would
leave.

Rather than arguing that a sanction for an offense is too harsh, might it not
be more prudent not to engage in the offensive behavior in the first place?
This is an online BBS, not the state pen.  You're not being condemned to die
for a murder you didn't commit.

When ISCA became an NPO, one of the things we changed was the uniform code
of punishment.   We did this mostly because it was pretty clear that 95% of
the problems were caused by about 2% of the users.  Rather than ramp up
rules on everyone to restrain that 2%, we'd rather get rid of the problem
users.

I find it telling that you complain that you've only abused the anon option
a couple of times.  The vast majority of us have never abused the anon
option even once.  The vast majority of us don't think it's fun to anger,
annoy or provoke other users, and I don't believe that the majority of us
want to put up with people who do.

In short, I believe that more people are leaving ISCA to avoid people like
you than are leaving because the rules here are too arbitrary or too strict.
If you choose to leave us, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out,
okay?

Chris> Okay, gotcha with you now.

Yes, I am aware of that.  I was the FM in question, actually, I was quoting
Juggernaut XL, who was calling me a "jackass," (but since he didn't directly
use my name, it isn't really a flame).

And, to be fair, pretty much everyone who got deleted for editorials and
political posts during the year that I was the FM claimed that I was deleting
them unfairly, or deleted them for some bias.

Chris> Said forum has a prohibition against editorials in the FI - always had
as long as I've been aware. And has always acted that way towards *anyone* who
posts editorials. It's not you being treated unfairly.

"Rainmaker> I learned which forums had FM's that treated me unfairly. Take for
example, I don't post in a certain news article forum because a news article
that I posted was blatantly deleted saying it was "an editorial"."

That's not the appropriate forum for this.  You probably want to take it to
Admin>, but I would recommend that you don't.

"It seems there may be one school of thought for the sysops etc. and another
for
users, but I think the penalty system around here has gotten a bit extreme."

There is no "penalty system" any more.  Instead, FM's have been given leeway to
control the disruption in the forums that they moderate.  It's been this way
for quite some time now.

 
You can suspect it all you want, but I can tell you it really is just you.
 

Again - I'm not seeking review for MYSELF.  I was an asshat - and evidently
far more severely than I myself considered myself to be, but nonetheless - I AM
NOT SEEKING APPEAL OF MY "REVIEW" for one simple reason: I don't want this
discussion to get lost in the minutiae of MY circumstance.  Period.  I'm taking
the hit in order to have a discussion withOUT anyone thinking "He's just doing
this so he can go back to being an asshat."

I'm not.

I'm bringing this up because I suspect there are others who have gotten zapped
and said "hell with it, I'm outta here"...and perhaps there should be a more
uniform code for punishment as a general policy.

Are you willing to have the post(s) in question that you made reposted here so
people can see what you did?

I'm not in the habit of checking each responder's "tags" to see if they are an
FM, sysop, etc. but after I posted in here last week - I had several people
x me and give VERY similar feedback, Juggernaut.

It seems there may be one school of thought for the sysops etc. and another for
users, but I think the penalty system around here has gotten a bit extreme.  It
is very easy to say "banned for 1 year" or such...but I'm wondering if some of
the major loss of users isn't due to this.  Sure, I understand the argument of
"I don't want them around here if they won't play by our rules anyway!!"  - BUT
- every user has a few bad days where they flare up, snipe, etc. and it seems
that history of months/years is used in assessing penalties.

In my case, a "snipe" I did in AMBUSH was used as evidence that I'[m a bad
citizen of isca.  I'm sorry - but that just doesn't seem right.

I'm not appealing my penalty, because it seems that, by appealing the only
thing that has happened to date is to INCREASE the penalty.  Lesson learned and
point taken.  I am bringing this issue up NOT to get anyone to say "poor
rainmaker, let's reduce his penalties"...I'm not asking for that.  But as
someone who DOES care about ISCA, I think it is important to consider the
current policy of extreme punishment.

Rainmaker> I learned which forums had FM's that treated me unfairly. Take for
example, I don't post in a certain news article forum because a news article
that I posted was blatantly deleted saying it was "an editorial". Now, I would
agree that an editorial is something else, but in fact it was not an editorial,
and every other news source editorializes right in "news articles". So, guess
what, I'm not going to give some jackass the satisfaction.

As far as I know, appeals doesn't work. I did actually have a petition about
that, didn't do anything. Seems it was totally ignored.

The discussion I'm having (and not JUST about MY latest assessed penalty) has
been the following: policy of punishment terms/duration.  It seems that
punishments, KO's start at 3 days...and perhaps there is a 3day KO once or
twice - and then the KO or other such punishment jumps to 3-months or 1 year in
duration.  That seems, as a matter of policy, rather severe.  I've noted
feedback from several users (including a few who have left ratehr than deal
with a lengthy BS appeals process) as well as my own experience.  This doesn't
seem a bit out of line to anyone else?

Sep 2, 2009 14:08 from Rainmaker
Question:
Since when is it "illegal" by isca standards to impersonate an anonymous user?
I.e. sign a post with the same "username" as another anon user?  After how many
posts does the handle become the exclusive property of said anon user?
[IscaBBS Policy Discussion> msg #47531 (15 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Ever since a) we started using common sense and b) moderators have been given
much more leeway to decide what is disruptive behavior.

ep 2, 2009 14:13 from Egregious
Unless it's in Weird>, where that's almost expected.
[IscaBBS Policy Discussion> msg #47532 (14 remaining)] Read cmd ->

No one can be expected to take Weird seriously. There is no way I would crack
down on users impersonating users in there: it is a fluff forum, first of all,
and second of all, impersonating other users has taken place since day 1.

Sep 3, 2009 21:17 from Marigolds
Does impersonating another anoymous user fall under the umbrella of anon abuse
then?
[IscaBBS Policy Discussion> msg #47546 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

Speaking as a PB member, I would say yes, I would support sanctions dealt as
a result of such behavior in non-fluff forums.

Does impersonating another anoymous user fall under the umbrella of anon abuse
then?

I agree.  Move along, dead thread there.  Any further discussion on the asshat
anon question?

Rainmaker's objection on the second point was that allegedly, the sysops
violated that policy.  That seems to be (to me) an implementation question, and
not a "what should the policy be" question.

Rainmaker brought up two policy points.  To re-cap:
When one uses the anonymous flag to be an asshat, it's completely appropriate
for the FM to sanction them and for the 'ops to yank the ability to post
anonymously.  This seems to be pretty broadly supported, so I don't really
know what traction this has for discussion in here -- perhaps discussion of
whether such a user's ability to post anonymously should be permanently
removed?  Personally, I'd back such a thought.

Sysops are supposed to maintain a professional attitude, particularly
when conducting 'business'.  That's the policy, and I don't think there is
really a move in here to change that policy.  So, this one is likely a dead
thread?

also, what "derogatory language when describing the user who has requested the
appeal" did you witness, rainmaker? i'd love to know how the big bad sysops
trashed on you.

no shit!

-- Matrix

Yup, I like to skirt the rules and start shit and even *I* know that's
something you only do as an obvious joke.

Yeah, agreed.  What purpose is there for impersonating an anon user other than
to start shit and clutter up and confuse a thread?  It's called being a dick,
and it doesn't add anything useful to the thread.

Because people are trying to have a conversation and the twelve-year-old
sitting next to them keeps on blowing his air horn and giggling.

If you want to screw with a forum, take your lumps.

Purposefully impersonating another user is being an asshole.

If you can't see how doing so it a total dick move, then I'm not sure anyone
can explain it.

How is that "disruptive"?  I mean, seriously...we';re not sitting in a library
talking loudly.

"Legality" isn't an issue.  If your posts are disrupt the forum, you will
likely be sanctioned for them.  Chances are you wouldn't be sanctioned for
using the handle "Confused" in Love>, unless you were clearly pretending to be
the other person already using that handle.  Take it a step further, if the
user is posting using the handle "BobbySue" and you start using the same one in
the same discussion, you are clearly trying to start something.  No rule needed
here - you are being disruptive.

"Since when is it "illegal" by isca standards to impersonate an anonymous user?
I.e. sign a post with the same "username" as another anon user?  After how many
posts does the handle become the exclusive property of said anon user?"

Pretty much always.

"Further, since when is it appropriate for sysops, when handling a review, to
use derogatory language when describing the user who has requested the appeal?
Not only is this unprofessional but clearly inappropriate."

It's not really appropriate, but at the same time, we're all grown ups, and we
can all tolerate grown up language.

Yup, there's a significant, and incredibly obvious, difference between posting
anon using a self-given handle that might have been used in the past (which
should be fine) and posting during an ongoing thread impersonating another user
already actively using a self-given anon handle (which should be rightously
smited by the FM)

If someone were posting to a thread as "bugcrusher" and someone else starts
pretending to be him by using "bugcrusher," I don't see the problem stomping
on the someone else by the FM.

Unless it's in Weird>, where that's almost expected.

Question:
Since when is it "illegal" by isca standards to impersonate an anonymous user?
I.e. sign a post with the same "username" as another anon user?  After how many
posts does the handle become the exclusive property of said anon user?

It seems that if this is indeed a policy - all users who have used "Confused"
in Love> over the past 20 years might be kicked out?


Further, since when is it appropriate for sysops, when handling a review, to
use derogatory language when describing the user who has requested the appeal?
Not only is this unprofessional but clearly inappropriate.

Oh well Tanj - NOW things need ot be handled properly. My bad. I know it
happened sometime after you posted off topic, but did it include running the
group properly too?  :)

Just fucking with ya, I'll post over there if you continue it there...

I don't want to bash Tanj or anyone else I really don't. But if everyone takes
everything else so seriously around here, why not actually run this like the
company that it is? Even an all-voluntee company has goals and projects and
people who are expected to get work done.

I've offered my help.

I think Rainmaker has a pretty good idea there too, and I'd even show (or not
if requested :) if I could make it whenever it was scheduled.

This should go to 49, please.  Particularly if we're going to recycle old
discussions...

I know this is TOTALLY an "old school" idea...BUT...

I worked for a company as a Project manager many years ago on a project that
had both technical and non-technical issues.  It turned into a bigger
clusterfuck than ISCA has been.

That said - an amazing resolution was able to be put together in rather short
order by bringing everyone face-to-face...decision makers and "tech
types"...and hammer out the major details.  one - two days max...and we could
all see this move forward.  Clear priorities would be established...votes as
needed can be taken during the 1-2 days to set boundaries, requirements, etc.
and wa-laa.  We move forward.

Thoughts?

Matrix is correct. We're in the same situation we were at two years ago.

1) The ISCA PB has no published project plan or directive other than "Move to
Linux sometime in the future."

2) All other requested updates and bug fixes are on hold until #1 happens.

3) The programmer in charge of #1 is working on the project by himself at times
that he deems fit. The ISCA PB has no timeline, no deadline and no plan to
bring on additional help to get #1 completed. This is more ISCA's fault than
the programmer as it is the one that should be driving the work with a prject
plan and it is the entity that should be ensuring that progress is happening,
if not, it should be the one that is finding additional volunteers (a number of
which have come forward over the past two years) to get the work done if the
existing programmer cannot.

4) Any external interface is still hampered by the ass-backward account
creation process. If the ISCA PB wants people to work on external interfaces it
needs to listen to the people that it is expecting to do the work.
Unfortunately, to date, the actions of the ISCA PB have made it clear that the
ISCA PB does not see fixing the account creation process as anything near a
priority.

5) The ISCA PB has decided that the only external interface to the board is
Raccdoc which is both closed source (so no one other than Tanj can work on it)
and incomplete. If you want external developers to create interfaces give them
a complete solution that is transparent or allow them to create their own
interfaces.


There is a bottleneck to external interface development and it is one that was
created by the ISCA PB when it made the decision to limit the number of
programmers to two, limit the external interface to raccdoc and went forward
without a plan.

This is a bottleneck that can *only* be removed by the ISCA PB. Do that and
you'll see a lot more people willing to work on interoperability. Keep things
limited to "we'll make changes when the linux port is done" and "you can only
used raccdoc as an interface" and you're going to see more of the status quo.
That is, little to no progress on the ISCA development side and little to no
interest from external developers to create a new gateway UI.

Tanj we went through this before.

ISCA has no idea what project managment is. This is no priority status, there
is not estimated time of completion, there are no progress reports, there is,
in any provable away - anything actually getting done.

Unless you'd like to prove me wrong by showing me a screenshot of your SVN, or
your project managment charts. Hell just tell me ISCA is even using these tools
and I'd be impressed.

As far as I can tell there are two people who kind do whatever they want and
ISCA never is really involved as a group.

> 2) manage the people who have programming/developer rights correctly

I'm not aware of what needs to be done with programmer rights.  From what
I know of Facebook gateways, we already have what is needed (an XML/web
services view that can be leveraged via pseudo-PHP).  someone just needs
to do it.

Just a FYI - the ISCABBS group on facebook currently has over 500 members.

If some changes are actually made to simplify login, build a better client,
etc - we can get more people using ISCA again. I have no doubt about that, but
I think a decision should be made.

1) put a fork in it, call it done
2) manage the people who have programming/developer rights correctly

Thanks.

And since my old and new names were both not active on the test bbs, the
wonderfully quick and streamlined account creation process strikes again.

test.iscabbs.com

There's also a Lobby> post.

Is the test BBS open to the public? If so, what's the address?

Looking at the test BBS, and speaking entirely from blackbox analysis, they've
added the account clean-up functionality, but they still don't have RaccDoc up.

ISCA itself doesn't have a whole lot of power in this area.  Tanj and Tiberius
have the keys to the kingdom, and they report to the PB, and the PB reports to
the NPO.

Actually, I wasn't even trying to make a Gestalt joke.
The PB and ISCA have both stated that they won't make any changes to the system
and the interface until -after- the BBS transitions to new software.
Then there was a test BBS, some momentum to get things done...and that's the
last I've heard of any of it. But then, I'm not on the PB or ISCA, so maybe
there's still something in the cards, and people are keeping a long list of
things to be done when the switch is flipped on the new system. I don't know,
I've no idea what's actually going on (or not).

*ding*

seriously. this place isn't worth making the joke anymore, and i *like* this
place.

That hope has long past met a dreary end.

OTOH, I crave a client that'll auto-elist anyone who lacks enough imagination
to avoid dredging up the "1998" joke.

Some things just automatically label you as someone worth not reading.

Aug 7, 2009 11:36 from The Great Godzilla
It'll be one of the things first on the list to fix once we move to Linux in...
oh wait, that was supposed to have happened a while ago, wasn't it?


The BBS is mostly comprised of "old-tymers". I don't think the BBS has forgone
resurrecting itself or attracting new members, it's just that the possibility
of it is somewhat distant.

The reason is: The bbs itself doesn't need to be brought to linux in order for
a client to be made that could be "more attractive to a more mainstream
audience". That said, given the fact that there has been multiple clients, they
have either not fulfilled the desire intended or not had the interest necessary
in the people making them.

Also, that there is an "absolute" refusal about the bbs to remove the
account-creation process should in and of itself signal something.

Would most of the users in here *really* like it if a bunch of "mainstream"
users came in here? I myself, like consistently moderated forums and not the
pure idiocy that inhabits unmoderated forums with plenty of "mainstream" users.

If there is a need to have easy mainstream fora, the bbs can host an actual web
forum. Your host would then be any web-host and your client would be every web
browser. [This already exists by the way].

blah blah blah. and yes.

hopefully it happens sooner than later.

It'll be one of the things first on the list to fix once we move to Linux in...
oh wait, that was supposed to have happened a while ago, wasn't it?

i agree with tommy on this, completely.

What are you talking about? Nobody has complained about that...

I know this forum's been dead for over a month, but I just wanted to say. After
my old account (Sir Mike) timed out, I saw all the activity going on in the
facebook group and decided to come back and see if the active userbase had
grown any.

As I lobbied for YEARS ago, the account creation process was juuust about
enough to make me just forget the whole thing.

For all the posturing and arguing and suggestions being thrown around...if you
guys accomplish but one thing, please, for the love of god, get rid of the
entire account creation process. With so many other modern options available,
it should take no more than 15 seconds, not 3-6 minutes.

I back off on that one - just saw the minute on/off.

So here you go BM. I was being snide and you caught me also being wrong.

I apologize.

And I'll publicly state that one of the reviews BM handled was mine, and I
thought she did a fantastic job. In fact if anyone wants to see for themselves,
I waive all confidentiality on the subject, and if the other party agrees as
well, then she can post the whole review if anyone cares.

apparently you're an a-hole because you're not DL?

Wow.  This was a fun little experiment.

Out of the six reviews that were requested in the past six months I did two of
them.  (Both of them had about a 24-48 hour turnaround time.)

Out of the 150 messages in my Mail> (dating back to January 1, 2009), 137 of
them were Sysop-related.

Out of the 150 messages in Sysop> (dating back to April 28, 2009), 17 are
headered by me.  (A good chunk of those are FM-headered posts, and some are
duplicates.)

I set up at least two UMFs this year in response to the two requests I received
for them.

This year, I voted on 15 FM spots out of the 15 opportunities that were
available.  (This does not mean 15 slots were filled as there is always the
option to vote for reopening.)

Out of the 150 posts in Administrative Parley> (dating back to December 1,
2008), 13 were mine.

Out of the 33 posts in Aux> (dating back to January 1, 2009), 14 were mine.

Out of the 16 posts in Virtual> (dating back to January 1, 2009), four were
mine.

You all can check how many times I weighed in on administrative issues
publicly.

I voted on every issue in I S C A> this year, but I have no idea how many times
we voted total.

There is some overlap with some of the Sysop-related correspondence -- multiple
copies of the same review go through Sysop> and all reviews are posted to
Parley>.

Any other questions about my Sysop activity or alleged lack thereof?

 
Well I log in for several hours a month so it's good to know that doesn't 
apply
to me.
 

Spontaneous combustion for all we know. No one has heard from him.

What ever happened to Houston anyway? they made him a sysop and he vanished for
good.

Why? Are you afriad that Adonis and Bleeding me may long in for longer than a
minute to read this crap? Or are you afarid that Kirk and TheBrez may remember
their password this month and accidentially stumble in here and NOT skip the
150 messages that have piled up since their last login?

I'm a little confused?

Here is policy suggestion "If you don't log in for at least 20 minutes a month
you have not fucking business with a Sysop flag."

Granted it would leave Devil Lady as the lone Sysop, but everyone seems to dig
her.

I'm not sure that this conversation is appropriate for this forum; in
particular, I do not want this forum to get into a "who is a good sysop and 
who
is not," unless we can tease some sort of policy ("all sysops should be
professional") or broader brush.
 

Houston.

I'm not sure that it belongs in here (I suspect it may be more appropriate in
Admin>), but perhaps you should state who you feel needs to follow Devil Lady's
example?  While it may not be desirable to single anyone out, it would
certainly help those Sysops to know that they need to improve.

I think every single one of you are not douche bags. You are enema bags.

I wrote "If only she were the rule". That does not mean that "every other
administrator" is not "nice", regardless of how you and Ace High choose to
misinterpret and miscontrue.

My meaning is that if more administrators would follow the example of courtesy
rather than discourtesy, the bbs would likely not have lost so many valuable
users. Unfortunately, too many administrators have behaved discourteously and
arrogantly to the point of putting off users. The bbs would have been better
off if the rule had been Devil Lady's style.

that's what cervantes is saying, which i disagreed with in a most courteous and
civil manner myself. the only person no longer behaving in that manner
is--ironically--cervantes.

so.

puhlease.

Ace High isn't a Sysop, so he's unlikely to delete you.
That said, I read the statement the same way.  If you're saying that, as a
"nice" Sysop, DL is the exception, logic pretty much demands that you're saying
that the rest of the Sysops are not nice.

"every other"? No. That's not what I said, remotely.

That said, you, Ace High, have been neither "courteous" nor "professional" as a
rule.

Do not even go there.

Or maybe you can come up with some sorry excuse to delete me.

huh?

most sysops are courteous and professional. i agree that DL has been, for
years, an example of near-effortless leadership while still making things
happen.

nonetheless, that's no excuse to bag on every other admin ever to cross paths
with you, which you've just managed to do.

"DL has always been nice enough..." . Always. Pork Chops told me she would be.
Years ago he told me that. She is the exception.

If only she were the rule.

Just so we are clear... all of my FM applications have been attempts at humor,
often poor ones, and DL has always been nice enough to respond back as if I
were serious, which makes it even more fun for me. I never really wanted an FM
spot.

Yesterday, I voted on 11 new FM spots.  Out of the number of people I voted
for, 5 people are not current FMs and I recommended that 1 spot reopen.

What did I condemn?

Count Bustanut = Nikk's new mult

Yeah what "things" are being done?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

What I find humorous about all this is that the same things the sysops (Devil
Lady especially) are condemning is the same type of thing they do to the
regular userbase all the time.   Oh, sorry, it's DIFFERENT when they do
it....its policy, or its a secret, or "we cant tell you that"  etc.

In short, if you arent part of the good old boys network here, you dont have a
shot, unless it's something none of the good old boys want to do.

You're not "new blood", Matrix. Give it up. The "old blood" ops want "new
blood" fms.

And vampires have nothing to do with it. Nothing whatsoever.

ALl of my applications in the past 2 years have been turned down!

SOMEONE LOOK AT ME AND TALK TO ME!!!

What Adonis said is absolutely correct about the aideline issue.  It would take
a serious infraction on your aideline to not be considered.  It's certainly
your choice to not have your aideline made public, but it's also unfortunate
because it could clear up this "the in crowd vs. the not in crowd" issue and/or
point to a larger problem.

Since you did say that this discussion is pretty much over anyway, I guess we
can all consider it dropped.

re:
As TL said "posting inhere removes me from consideration"

That was not what I posted. HTH.

It does not hinder your chances to apply for more than one opening.  It helps,
however, if you address in your application anything special you would bring to
each forum for which you apply.  Or write a separate paragraph for each one and
submit separate applications.

With regard to aidelines, frankly there are so few serious sanctions nowadays
that most people have an clean slate in that regard.  The days of long,
drawn-out battles between FMs and people who read the forums, reviews of
deletions and kick-outs, appeals of reviews -- those are rare these days.  I
like to think that it shows a certain maturity of the board in general.  But I
digress.

Bumpkin - you can apply to 50 of them.  You're not "in" so you won't get any.
Enjoy!

you have permission to post my aideline if you so choose, I have nothing to
hide!

new FMs>

out of curiosity, in case I actually do apply to be an FM, is it "bad" if I
apply for more than one?  i mean would the admins say "oh he's applied for 4 of
them, so he's probably desperate, we're not going to give him one" or would
they look ata all 4 apps, say "ooh, he looks good for forum X, but no one else
has applied for Y except him, so we're going to put him at Y, and this other
user who's pretty good we'll put at X"?

No thanks.

As TL said "posting inhere removes me from consideration" - this isn't some
Honor Society for God's sake.  This is a bunch of people reading text on a
screen.  I've only used my comments in here to illustrate...and besides, Devil
Lady will say "Well, that was only one case..." once everyone sees what
happened.

Regardless - I couldn't give a shit.  You couldn't pay me to FM now.  I'm not
interested.  I just wanted to give a little comment and allow everyone to
reconsider their positions on selection of FMs.  They don't want to do that -
they want to nitpick MY info to "prove" why I would have been a bad
choice...and Devil lady has the audacity to maike her post when SHE was the one
that wrote to me about "experience" of the other users in question.

The point is gone - move the topic of discussion to something else.  Nothing
can be accomplished here at this point.  I reiterate my point: They can go fuck
themselves - no one but THEM is correct.

Reposted minus the typo...

Plus if Rainmaker gives us permission we can post his aideline as well since
that is also a factor in FM selection.  As Dazed pointed out, you don't need to
have a clean aideline, but certain policy violations are far worse than others.
I can get more specific with his aideline.

Well, FWIW, Rainmaker....I did resign from permanent FMship of Gender Issues>.
When they open that up, try again and see what happens.

FWIW, I want to moderate Allergies> however I sent DL a mail just letting her
know I'd like to moderate it if no one else voices interest.  Newcomers are
getting more than a fair shake right now, but throwing a tantrum in here can
pretty much remove you from consideration.

Want to know something? It isn't hard to play well with others. It really
isn't. Heck, even Matrix moderates a forum. If you'll take note, Matrix often
voices opinions which are very negative - but his approach is a civil one for
the most part.

Well, would anyone be willing to throw up their "app paragraph"?

I have really enjoyed the short paragraphs people have been sending with the
no-app.  Almost everyone has sent just a little info telling why they want to
moderate the forum.  The information is, in my opinion, better than what we
were getting by asking specific questions.

Maybe it would help this discussion if Rainmaker approved of DL posting his
application, and maybe some others may post other application, some that
failed, and some that succeeded.
Maybe by showing what worked well, and possibly why, and what didnt work so
well, and why it didnt, rianmaker might be more able to put together a stronger
application next time.

oh, wait.. i forgot.. we dont do the apps anymore.
*ponders*\
if someone went thru the effort of putting together the full app.. would that
be a pisitive thing to the ops making the decision on who gets the room?

Experience isn't a huge driver for us, with the exception of an occasional
forum that is know to be a tough forum to moderate. Ideas about improving the
forum make a much, much bigger impression.  I will also say that we have never
said we are ONLY considering new FM - we have said that a forum would be good
for new FMs to moderate, but that doesn't mean that someone with some
experience won't have better ideas.  I'll say again that we weight things in
favor of new FMs.  In almost every case, FMs with 3+ fora get the last ones
when no one else applies.

Devil Lady>
Your post is exactly the bullshit to which I'm referring.  When two people
apply and one has experience - all things CAN'T be equal.  BUT...if you want
new blood, then you say "we're only considering new applicants for this one"
and regardless of how good the experienced applicants are, you reject them.

Your system evolves to include only those with experience...and no one else can
get in.

And perhaps my post does sound like "taking my ball and going home" - why
shouldn't it?  I tried to be helpful.  I've never been TWITed etc. a few
kickouts when I got overly passionate about arguments etc.  Regardless, I post
here only to help those like Devil Lady see that there MIGHT be a better way to
increaase involvement.  Those who are invovled tend to stay WITH an
organization.  Lack of involvement is a key indicator that people will leave an
organization.

The only application for you that I have on my computer currently was simply
not on par with the one received by the successful applicant.  The other person
gave lots of ideas for improving the forum and showed they had an understanding
of what was needed.

When we are selecting FMs, we look for the best person for that slot. When we
have 5 people interested, we can only pick one of them.  All things being
equal, we absolutely lean toward "new blood."  However, if all things aren't
equal (one really gets across to us that they are the best candidate), then w
are going to go with that person.

I'll add also that the response for this last round was terrific - which means
a lot of people who are interested won't be selected.

Rainmaker>> there still has to be something that is un-said why you haven't
been chosen to be an FM, regardless of your words or actions that you've spoken
of.

Take myself as an example. My aideline isn't clean. I've been TWITted, warned,
KOed, etc., however I applied last year to be in the Temp FM pool after 15
years of being just a user on ISCABBS. Perhaps it was non-BBS moderating
experience that got me the gig here, who knows. But, since then I've temped as
much as I can for fluff forum, moderately-trafficked forums, and everything
between  and am a perm FM for a couple.

Now, in your post, your last paragraph reads to me like you are "taking your
ball and going home". That certainly won't help your cause in becoming an FM.
Just be quiet and keep applying!

I tried being nice, civil, respectful in my approach.  I tried this for several
years as I watched the BBS struggle and realized that somethign that I've
enjoyed for many years "needed me" (or so I thought).  I read the postings
"PLEASE - we need FMs for the following fora..." and at first ignored them back
in the early 90's.  As 2000 came around, i started to recognize that it was
always the same-old same-old as far as who had to shoulder the burden/

So...I applied.  The first time,it was for a forum that I actively read and
positively contributed to.  It had a reasonably high scroll - and so I
understood when I was rejected.

When I saw a couple of posts that indicated FMs were desperately needed, I
thought "I read that forum...I know what's going on in there..I can help."  The
FM "searcher" indicated in their post that it would be a good forum for a
first-time FM.  When I applied, I was told that they were selectign an "FM with
more experience."  At that time, I brought up the idea of "FM Mentors" (someone
with lots of FM experience to mentor a new FM so that the Powers That Be could
feel more comfortable in taking a risk on an untested FM.  Smoke Eater (despite
our differences personally) agreed to be my "FM Mentor" if I were given a slot.

I applied to a third opening.  It was a forum I read and participated in, no
"trouble" issues, and had a relatively low scroll.  I was rejected for an FM
who already had 3 other fora to moderate.


So...while you may tell me that I'm not being level headed when I say that
those who select FMs and complain that others won't participate to Go Fuck
Themselves, I say this: I use this language simply to serve as aan exclamation
point for someone who has TRIED to jump through the hooks, created their own
hoop (FM mentor) to help further...and still was rejected.

I will not be attempting to assist in the future, but as you evaluate the
"policies" of this BBS, consider first and foremost your policies - official or
unofficial - toward outsiders that try and help.

Rainmaker> Have you looked at your aideline and/or your recent behavior online
lately?  That plays a critical role in FM selection.

Yeah it's possible we don't want new people to "rock the boat" or not "be so
different from the old blood," but when a person is continually being
overlooked for an FM spot, it's wise to look inward first.

I, personally, have recruited and installed users who have never FMed before
for temporary gigs.  By recruited, I mean proactively approached people instead
of waiting for applications to come in.

For what it's worth (not much) and as a member for the last 23 years or so,
here's my general impression on FMing.

I've had occasional inklings to be a FM, but a forum that IMO _needs_ FMing.
What's the point of being FM for a forum where everyone is nice and behaved.

The forums who seem to need FMing are the ones where there are a certain level
of misbehavior that is well, tolerated. There's a threshold that offenders seem
to understand - a high threshold - and as long as they cruise just under it,
they're tolerated. Other generally well-behaved people just get tired of them
and leave.

Do I think we've lost a lot of members over the decades due to that? No. Maybe
one or two people a month, who either leave the site, or abandon the forum(s)
in question entirely.

Insults fly back and forth, stuff wanders back and forth off-topic, people
multi-post 3, 4 times in a row, and so on. The same people get warnings, they
(maybe) stop for a little bit, they come back, they do the same thing, and on
and on it goes for years.

These days, if I protest, the answer is usually something like "Well, the
scroll rate is slow enough it's not a big deal." Well, if we slowly leak
members because of this behavior, of course the scroll rate is going to be
lower.

If I became FM, I'd probably crack down on such behavior... and the impression
I get is that at most levels, no one wants the behavior to be cracked down
upon.

Like I said, my $0.01, for what it's worth. *shrug*

However - if we could have co-moderators - if would be funny as fuck to let
those two run a forum together.

I was tempted to post something along the lines of what Matrix did, but being
on the PB it would have been unprofessional.  However, I think Sheik stated
it very nicely. You don't need to be a "yes man" to moderate, to join the
NPO, to become a sysop, but you should be the type who doesn't act like a
jerk 100% of the time. There is a difference between being a jerk and being
a critic.  Critics absolutely are welcome - dissenting opinions are great and
provide an alternate perspective. How it's voiced/displayed is another matter.

No one is asking anyone, even a sysop, to be a perfect, sinless reflection of
God. However, not being an unrepentent douchebag is something that will be
insisted upon.

Yes, because telling people in a public forum covering BBS policy that those in
charge can go fuck themselves is a PERFECT way to show that you are level
headed and even handed enough to be a FM here.

I wouldn't let you or Bumpkin moderate my toilet water.

I'm jus' sayin!

Or "new blood that really won't be so different from the old blood and won't
dare upset the applecart."  I'm not defending Bumpkin because, well,...that's
Bumpkin.  What I will say is that I have volunteered to be an FM 4 times, 3 of
which were for ULTA-low traffic fora.  In each case, I was declined in favor of
"someone with more experience." - 2 times the person selected already had 3 or
more fora for which they were responsible.

In terms of MY opinion on policy (and you can take it with a grain of salt if
you like) is that those people in charge of selection should go fuck
themselves.  They don't want new blood, fresh ideas, or any other such
"improvements."  They want people to log in and play in THEIR sandbox.  Until
THAT policcy (official or unofficial) changes, you aren't going to see anything
better happening around here.

They might mean "new blood that we think will make a useful contribution to the
TEAM"

i've been volunteering to be a Sysop for years now, so that "new blood is
revitalizing" is bullshit

I wouldn't mind seeing another Sysop or two for several reasons:

1) New blood is revitalizing.  I would like to see someone who is willing to
try new things.  We have been trying to simplify, but new eyes on things are
nice.   If you profile all of the Sysops, you'll see that two haven't logged in
for about month, and we just lost a Sysop due to account time-out. That puts us
down from 6 to 3.  I think 3-4 is about the right number to allow for
discussion and bouncing things off each other as well as handling the work
load, and we really could use a person or two who has that new gung-ho thing
going on.  That is not to say that the rest of us aren't energetic, but I think
occasional new energy revitalizes the group.

2) We each have things we like doing and things we don't like doing.  We are
more likely to hit the "likes" or at least spread out the "don't likes" with
more Sysops.

I'm on three BBSes, one of which was aborted early on by Nikk Kaim's antics. I
like all of them - they all have distinct "feels." I don't have as much time to
play on Inara, but I do like it. Being a user on one does not preclude one from
being a user on the other. There is no "us vs. them" in anyone's mind except
perhaps the "problem users"

And, as far as Gespalder, Oppie Taylor (River Rat), and so forth are concerned:
on this BBS we don't single out users to be used as punching bags. There is a
single forum devoted to that but the targets have to be actively involved in
that forum to even know that the bull shit is actually going on. If you don't
like Oppie, Gespalder, et al then one can simply just ignore them, or grow up
and just learn to agree to disagree. Unfortunately not everyone is mature
enough to do that so they feel the need to foster an environment where one can
gang up on and bully certain users.

As far as some of the permatwits are concerned, you might have a point there
(they are grouped in with "problem users" or "disliked users" obviously): we
should have been able to get rid of them a hell of a lot sooner. Honestly, were
it up to me, I'd have told a couple of the permatwits they're history at least
a couple of years before it finally became obvious to (OLD) ISCA that the
users are and always will be unrepentent douchebags. I'd have punted two of
them in particular back in 2002 or 2003, one of them possibly much earlier.

Now it's a bit easier to get rid of them, but it's not up to any one person.
Honestly, that's a good thing. This means that if one sysop hats your guts,
Matrix, that one person cannot unilaterally decide that you're banned. That
kind of thing will not be allowed here. I know that there are people here
who dislike you, and there are people here who dislike me. The great thing is
that we insist that you be enough of an adult to agree to disagree - or at
least take advantage of your client and ignore the person(s) you dislike.

As far as the number of sysops - that is open to debate. I won't comment on
that here except that I would like to see a sysop weigh in on that issue in
this discussion. My personal opinion on it however is that even if there
were a tiny workload here, I wouldn't want it all to be on one sysop, and
what would happen if that one sysop became incapacitated, or would try to take
the ball and say "screw you guys, I'm goin' home?"

Are we all circling the drain at this point?  How long before it's just
Gespalder cutting and pasting?

Gestalt should start working when we head over there in 1998.

Except Tanj, your shit still don't work, so stop with the commerical. I tried
using Gestalt for a month and told you about errors that are still there.

And you guys are misreading me, I'm not saying we should be like Inara.

We should not be like Inara.

However Inara runs just fine without the lame ass rules on rules policy, and
way too may sysops running through a system that, UNDENIABLY, was designed for
a much much larger group of people.

We can eliminate 90% of the baggage without anyone noticing and, also, without
pissing people off.

You guys are in here talking about adding term limits and ways to measure sysop
popularity.

It's sad you think this shit is that important that it needs that kind of
moderation.

Or, you could log into Gestalt and be on Gestalt, ISCABBS, and Inara at the
same time with a single window.  <shrugs>
 
it's easy enough for people to go to a new community, fi only there were a new
community worth going to.

I, for one, would be a whole lot more likely to leave if this place became much
like Inara.

I think Belgium's quite right: any changes to this BBS should play to its
strengths.  Matrix's little poll almost proves the opposite of what he's
saying: rather than trying to be everything to everyone by being a little more
lax but not too much more, it should retain to some extent its tradition of
tight moderation.

I wouldn't deny that there are certainly changes that should be made to
streamline the place--far less in the way of procedure and the like.  But the
spirit should remain similar.

Has anyone considered doing the reverse of that poll and asking people why
they're on here instead of on Inara?

True, laziness and force of habit might be a reason. And some here might not be
aware of inara while I think everyone on inara is aware of ISCA. But there are
other reasons: some just don't like a "wild-westy" athmosphere. So why try and
copy inara rather than mapping out what the strengths of this place are and
building on them instead?

What did the 5th person say?

I asked 5 users on INARA why they preferred Inara to ISCA..

USER 1
my friends are here and there's less psychos and annoying people

USER 2
Why are you asking?
I prefer it for a lot of reasons, but put most simply it is the lack of
administrative hassles. I feel that ISCA's enormous hierarchy of rules and
people enforcing those rules is outdated and unneccessary, and while it may
have served it's intended purpose long ago, now the rules do much more to ...
.... protect the most extremely detrimental behavior by those who've made an
art form out of being complete nuisances to the entire userbase _but_ doing so
just inside the letter the law.
Here, it's more Wild West-y. It's like how the rules are (were) applied in
ISCA's TMR> over the years, but BBS-wide.
Plus, all my friends are here, and very few of my friends are on ISCA with any
regularity.

USER 3
because I hate so many users on isca like gespalder, oppie taylor, etc...

USER 4
i use this as entertainment...to goof off and have fun. Relax. I know the
people here and i believe them to not take themselves as seriously as those on
isca, even during a serious argument. so it isn't the policy, it's the people.
  Have a great day!

The only reason I'm on here and not Inara is because I'm a lazy creature of
habbit - and let's face it - the only reason you are here is that you too are a
lazy creature of habbit. In the past 15 years or so I've been on here - wow
maybe even longer - this place has changed a whoooooooooooooooooole fucking lot
and I'm still here.

I disgaree with your argument that the MINOR change that people will actually
notice will make them run away.

Those who did run to Inanra ran because too many people here took this shit way
too seriously and it just became annoying.

I am only 'pretending' that this place is different than Inara and that 
some prefer this bbs to that one. If ISCA is run like Inara, then the
people who prefer Inara will have two bbses and the folks that prefer
ISCA one will have zero. 

I fail to see why YOU fail to see that changing the way a place is run 
will change the atmosphere. If two bbses start the same except for the 
rules, and the atmospheres develop differently enough to create 
preferences in the users, well, my connect-the-dots gets a different 
result than yours. 

a better analogy is that this BBS is a 1970 challenger. it was once awesome,
is now dated, and yet still has a small but loyal fan base.

however, it's just not reasonable or realistic to try to keep changing this car
so it's a 2009 carrera s. there already *are* 2009 carreras out there; we're
here because we don't mind cruising around in a 1970 challenger every once in
awhile.

Fafaf - first, I've already offered that help, publicly, in Future>.

But you need to stop pretending this place is, for some reason, more special
than Inara. It's not. It can be run just as simply with just as many rules, and
still have the same character it had 3 days before we decided to stop
pretending we needed to go business as usual.

My assumption, unlike your suggestion, isn't based entirely on being
argumentative - I have some indicators that make me believe my assumption is
possibly a good way to lean when debating this.

For instance... take the number of users on this BBS right now.

51.

Of those users, pick out the names of users you regularly see posting in forums
like this one. Not just when their names are called, and don't include forums
like Future where policy is shunned, but people you are liekly to see in this
forum regularly.

Let's see

Steppenwolf
Ace High
Rainmaker
Girafee
Sheik Yerbouti
Matrix
Dazed
DrMemory (he kind of has to be)
Townsaver
KAM
Tanj (but only when you call him names)
Devil Lady
Wang Master
Knightshade

14 or so people. Even allowing you to round up.. 20. Less than 1/2.

But wait, there is more proof!

This forum scroll goes all the way back to March. That's not an overly popular
topic no matter how you look at it.

You do not want more procedures, but you do want number of hours logged 
daily to be taken into account when choosing a new Sysop. You want one 
guy to have total control of the whole BBS, but the BBS is not important 
enough for anyone to care who Ops or FMs anything anymore anyway. Sysops 
should be qualified to do their jobs, shoulde hav either term limits or 
actual requirements before getting canned or replaced, but we do not 
need a system of checks and balances, codifed rules, or even more than 
one omnipotent sysop. 

This BBS has a feel to it that is not imitated well anywhere else. 
JoeUser can offer opinions, and if JoeUser is good at building a 
consensus, JoeUser can set a new atmosphere. And, then, when JoeUser's 
life gets busy, the BBS continues without him, until he wants to return 
to it. Your one-user-run board dies when that one user starts a family, 
or changes hobbies. 

If there is nothing here that you care about, you can not tell it by 
your frequent, passionate posts (which, I thank you for, incidentally). 
However, maybe you could be more clear. There are people moving to make 
the BBS accessible in non-text capacity. Want to help? 

dubious.
matrix is saying a lot of the same stuff i was saying in here a month ago. he's
just saying it way better than i did.

Matrix -
In general I tend to agree with your "reduction in beaurocratic BS"
approach...however, I do have a differing opinion on one key point:

You assume that the userbase of ISCA, in general, agrees that "beaurocracy is
bad" - and I'd suggest that the users that are left on here LIKE if not REQUIRE
beaurocracy.  They LIKE "policies and procedures" - are happiest when a
committee works through issues rather than an individual being accountable and
making decisions.

So...to reduce beaurocracy on here might well HURT membership.  I'd encourage
increasing it in order to possibly grow!

Fafaf - I soooo don't get your point. I mean I can see where you tried, but
honestly you left me behind somewhere with that pothole analogy and then you
confused my points about isca being important and how ANY SINGLE ONE PERSON
WITH A COPIED EULA can run a more useful bulletin board than this one, and do
it well.

I'm offering up proof that everything we have by way of policy, rules, PB, etc
is all so much bullshit. It's unimporant, it's useless and nobody but nobody
can make a case to keep it that makes any sense whatsoever.

Do we need all the rules?

No. We need 1 sysop who does all the work, of which there isn't all that much
anyway - except the bullshit work created by useless rules.

Imagine the BBS without rules...

SysopTed: "Hey, UserBill, want to FM Clocks & Watches>?"
UserBull: "Sure"
SysopTed: "Ok, have fun, you are now the FM."
UserBill: "Cool!"

Now, holy shit even with the new process it's a waste of cycles. It doesn't
need to be that fucked up and involved. Sysop noticed forum without an FM,
Sysop asks someone on here to FM the forum. Ta-Da!

Matrix, your post reminds me of the people laughing at the guy who 
spends tons of time trying to get the pothole in front of his driveway 
fixed. Yes, there are chlidren starving in third world nations; yes, 
there are corrupt politicians at all levels of government; yes, this 
country needs adult literacy, animal shelter, and food bank volunteers. 
But if the guy cares enough to do something that makes his corner of the 
world better, he is still doing more than 90% of his neighbors (who, by 
the way, will also benefit from his success). 
 
ISCA does not need to be 'important' to be worth effort from folks who 
care about it. It does not need more traffic than a one-user-run
babydoll discussion board to deserve democracy, fair treatment, voting 
sysops, et al. That discussion board thrives because one user cares 
about babydolls and makes the effort sharing hir passion with others, 
who benefit without having invested the same amount of time. 
 
But about the topic at hand: we do not need term limits, or periodic 
Sysop retention votes. If a sysops is screwing up, we have policies in 
place to handle that. Simply running a popularity poll, which is what I 
fear that retention vote would turn into, is a bad idea. *silver shrugs*

I didn't make a decision JuggernautXL. I made a case.

But to be fair, a long time ago, when we had more programmers than we knew what
to do with, I suggested a lot of changes, improvements, updates, ideas about
following new technology, etc... some were stupid ideas, some would have failed
outright, but I think some were good enough...

But when I made those posts, I would also make the case that if we didn't do
SOMETHING along the lines I was suggesting, that this place would be just as
dead as all of the other BBS's were.

Someone like you, without fail, would come along and talk about how it's only
my one opinion, how things were fine, how I was wrong about the death of this
place.

I wasn't.

I'm not wrong now either.

This place doesn't need MORE procedure because it won't fix anything. At best
it needs a lot less procedure so that there are feweer people annoyed with the
whole process.

It needs less energy focused on rules and bullshit policy, and more focused on
getting this BBS outside of this little telnet window.

That would be a decision that *all* users of this forum would make, not one
lone voice [or two]...

In that context, pending a massive change of opinion on the part of the
majority of the users, your suggestion seems extreme.

You know I post a lot of silly shit on here because it's fun and I really don't
give that much of a fuck about being kicked off, and I have to admit the Sysops
and FM's have generally been amazingly tolerant of me.

But what I am about to say is 100% serious.

This BBS used to be one of the most important things on the internet. For a
brief moment of time it was the largest bulletin board on the net, and before
the term Instant Messaging was even coined, people were doing it on here by the
tens of thousands (not at a time, mind you) but this place had a very serious
need for procedure, police, several sysops and rules out the wazoo. An
absolute and justified need for those things, and I am not even talking about
the U demanding it.

Now, this place is one small step ahead of Inara, a BBS that was spun off (in
my opinion) because there was a core group of users who felt the people on here
were taking this shit way too seriously.

And, you are. You have never let go of ISCA being important. It doesn't need a
fuckload of codified rules. It doesn't need more than one Sysop. It doesn't
need a system of checks and balances - and furthermore - no matter what you do
to that system, things will not get better. They CAN NOT get better until
everyone on here wakes up and realizes that there are internet discussion
boards about babydolls that gets more traffic, and has a larger user base, than
ISCABBS has had in the past 4 or so years.

The worst part? Those small discussion boards are run by one person, with a
cut-n-pasted EULA that basically says "Don't be a dick or I will delete and/or
ban you for life."

Inara doesn't even have that.

I BBS of this size doesn't need democracy, fair treatment, voting sysops, term
limits, safe spaces and got knows what else.

If you want to put time and enegery into something, find ways (or programmers)_
to take this BBS out of its 1980's all-text hell.

As I doubt anyone will do that any time soon, then yes Dazed, we should just
pull the fucking plug once and for all.

The opinion of "Nobody's on here, therefore ___________" ranks up there just as
high as "Being a sysop is a volunteer position, expect them not to reply
expediently because they are busy with their real lives" or "Any traffic in the
forums is good traffic".

If all 3 of those were actually true, it's time to pull the plug on the BBS
once and for all.

Here's another thought.

Nobody's fucking on here. Who really gives that much of a fuck about who ops or
FM's shit anymore?

Here's a thought...

Introduce "Retention Voting" for any member of the BBS to vote on.  If the
Sysop in question gets 50.1% of the vote or more, they keep the job...if not,
the position gets kicked up to the Sysops (or whoever) to look at filling.

If an FM is being unfair/unreasonable, the users will now have a voice.  Could
do the same thing for Sysops as well - but maybe give them a slightly longer
term between votes.

They did annual sysop reviews once upon a time, but its been years since I've
seen one... and in the history of the BBS I can only recall one sysop whose job
was ever impacted by them anyway.  It's possible others who kept their jobs
were somehow impacted by the comments in them though, but it seems like a
process that was abandoned some time ago.

I'd like to apply to be a Sysop.

I know that my frequent logging in for 17 years and my experience as FM, or my
ideas that have changed the entire face of the BBS will totally disqualify me
when compared to someone who really doesn't log in much anymore, never did much
besides post about stupid shit in Babble> and never had an original idea in
their head but I'd lke to apply anyway.

Seriously - how many sysops do we have right now that are actually qualified to
do the job?

If we don't have term limits, could we at least have minimal requirements
before getting canned and replaced?

I think "amount of time per day you are logged in" could be a good place to
start.