Bob Bainbridge | 1 Mar 01:28 2011
Picon

Re: Where are all the messages stored?

Peter Taylor wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 06:17 PM, Terry R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2/28/2011 8:35 AM On a whim, Peter Taylor pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 02/28/2011 05:31 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2011 7:08 AM On a whim, Peter Taylor pounded out on the 
>>>> keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/28/2011 03:42 PM, Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you reloaded Windows, all your messages are long gone, sorry. Now
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> know that back up is a computer user's best friend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well said, but then most users don't quite know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they use Windows, sooner or later they will find out.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so the Linux or OSX users that lose hard drives won't ever find 
>>>> out,
>>>> right? OS has nothing to do with keeping good backups.
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say it did. It's just that Windows users usually find out
>>> sooner than a Linux or OSX user due to the instability of Windows and it
>>> being prone to malware.
>>>
>>
(Continue reading)

Jay Garcia | 1 Mar 17:02 2011

Cancellation Policy?!

The cancellation policy:

==========================================================================
The support newsgroups are monitored by a small group of technical
support community members.

Uncivil Posts

The first rule of the etiquette guidelines is to be civil. If they agree
that a post contains a personal attack, they will immediately remove the
post and (if possible) notify the poster by private e-mail.
Off-Topic Posts and Other Etiquette Violations

If they agree that someone is regularly off-topic or repeatedly violates
the etiquette guidelines in other ways, they will warn them by private
e-mail (or in the newsgroup if the e-mail address cannot be determined).
If they later agree that the behaviour has not changed, they will notify
the person by e-mail (or newsgroup post, as above) and then start to
cancel any and all infringing posts from that person, without warning or
comment.

At least the first time round, an e-mailed assurance of reformation,
plus a practical demonstration of one month in length (where the group
feels the need to cancel no or very few posts), resets the process.
===========================================================================

Points:

1.

(Continue reading)

Jay Garcia | 1 Mar 18:43 2011

Re: Where are all the messages stored?

On 01.03.2011 11:36, Peter Taylor wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>>> I don't subscribe to mozilla.general. I'll drop it, though, if it makes
>>> you feel better.
>>>
>>
>> And you removed the follow-up again.
> 
> Of course I did. Otherwise I wouldn't see your reply. Duh!

The purpose of follow ups is to take an OT post(s) away from the support
group(s). If it is that important to SEE a reply then it's a simple
matter to subscribe to m.general.

Now, I am setting the f'up to m.general and you SEE this reply, ok? Any
subsequent replies will remain in m.general where I will see it/them, etc.

--

-- 
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird
*DISCLAIMER: I have no authority here, therefore all replies other than
factual support answers are my opinions only.*
Terry R. | 1 Mar 19:26 2011

Re: Cancellation Policy?!

On 3/1/2011 8:02 AM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard

> The cancellation policy:
>
> ==========================================================================
> The support newsgroups are monitored by a small group of technical
> support community members.
>
> Uncivil Posts
>
> The first rule of the etiquette guidelines is to be civil. If they agree
> that a post contains a personal attack, they will immediately remove the
> post and (if possible) notify the poster by private e-mail.
> Off-Topic Posts and Other Etiquette Violations
>
> If they agree that someone is regularly off-topic or repeatedly violates
> the etiquette guidelines in other ways, they will warn them by private
> e-mail (or in the newsgroup if the e-mail address cannot be determined).
> If they later agree that the behaviour has not changed, they will notify
> the person by e-mail (or newsgroup post, as above) and then start to
> cancel any and all infringing posts from that person, without warning or
> comment.
>
> At least the first time round, an e-mailed assurance of reformation,
> plus a practical demonstration of one month in length (where the group
> feels the need to cancel no or very few posts), resets the process.
> ===========================================================================
>
> Points:
>
(Continue reading)

Jay Garcia | 1 Mar 22:08 2011

Re: Cancellation Policy?!

On 01.03.2011 12:26, Terry R. wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> I'm curious as to why Chris wouldn't have responded to the issue with
> Peter removing the follow-up repeatedly, rather than leaving it as a
> user opinion, which by the protocols set here, it clearly wasn't.
> 
> 
> Terry R.

There are many infractions of the guidelines that are not addressed,
only those that fit his fancy depending on who the offender is, IMHO of
course. That's basically the point of my OP, there needs to be a quorum
so that one persons's "fancy" doesn't prevail in adjudcating the
guidlines, etc.

--

-- 
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird
*DISCLAIMER: I have no authority here, therefore all replies other than
factual support answers are my opinions only.*
Jay Garcia | 1 Mar 22:13 2011

Re: Where are all the messages stored?

On 01.03.2011 12:21, Terry R. wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On 3/1/2011 9:43 AM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard
> 
>> On 01.03.2011 11:36, Peter Taylor wrote:
>>
>>   --- Original Message ---
>>
>>>>> I don't subscribe to mozilla.general. I'll drop it, though, if it
>>>>> makes
>>>>> you feel better.
>>>>>
>>>> And you removed the follow-up again.
>>> Of course I did. Otherwise I wouldn't see your reply. Duh!
>>
>> The purpose of follow ups is to take an OT post(s) away from the support
>> group(s). If it is that important to SEE a reply then it's a simple
>> matter to subscribe to m.general.
>>
>> Now, I am setting the f'up to m.general and you SEE this reply, ok? Any
>> subsequent replies will remain in m.general where I will see it/them,
>> etc.
>>
> 
> You didn't set a follow-up, but a cross-post...but I did.
> 
> To clarify, you would have set a follow-up to mozilla.general, as there
> is no m.general.
(Continue reading)

David E. Ross | 1 Mar 23:34 2011

Re: Cancellation Policy?!

On 3/1/11 1:08 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 01.03.2011 12:26, Terry R. wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
>> I'm curious as to why Chris wouldn't have responded to the issue with
>> Peter removing the follow-up repeatedly, rather than leaving it as a
>> user opinion, which by the protocols set here, it clearly wasn't.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
> 
> There are many infractions of the guidelines that are not addressed,
> only those that fit his fancy depending on who the offender is, IMHO of
> course. That's basically the point of my OP, there needs to be a quorum
> so that one persons's "fancy" doesn't prevail in adjudcating the
> guidlines, etc.
> 

See bug #620680 at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=620680>.

--

-- 

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

On occasion, I might filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
because of spam from that source.
(Continue reading)

Terry R. | 2 Mar 01:32 2011

Re: Cancellation Policy?!

On 3/1/2011 2:34 PM On a whim, David E. Ross pounded out on the keyboard

> On 3/1/11 1:08 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 01.03.2011 12:26, Terry R. wrote:
>>
>>   --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I'm curious as to why Chris wouldn't have responded to the issue with
>>> Peter removing the follow-up repeatedly, rather than leaving it as a
>>> user opinion, which by the protocols set here, it clearly wasn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>> There are many infractions of the guidelines that are not addressed,
>> only those that fit his fancy depending on who the offender is, IMHO of
>> course. That's basically the point of my OP, there needs to be a quorum
>> so that one persons's "fancy" doesn't prevail in adjudcating the
>> guidlines, etc.
>>
>
> See bug #620680 at<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=620680>.
>

I always state a follow-up to.  And yes, Chris doesn't.

Terry R.
--

-- 
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
(Continue reading)

Andrew DeFaria | 2 Mar 04:05 2011

Re: Cancellation Policy?!

On 03/01/2011 10:02 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
The cancellation policy: ========================================================================== The support newsgroups are monitored by a small group of technical support community members. Uncivil Posts The first rule of the etiquette guidelines is to be civil. If they agree that a post contains a personal attack, they will immediately remove the post and (if possible) notify the poster by private e-mail. Off-Topic Posts and Other Etiquette Violations If they agree that someone is regularly off-topic or repeatedly violates the etiquette guidelines in other ways, they will warn them by private e-mail (or in the newsgroup if the e-mail address cannot be determined).
We will assume that if an email address, or what looks like an email address is present then there must be a human being on the other end reading it and that nothing ever goes wrong with email servers nor do people employ spam filters or other means of filtering email. IOW if we determine we think this is an email address then we can send it there and just assume that it got there...
If they later agree that the behaviour has not changed, they will notify the person by e-mail (or newsgroup post, as above) and then start to cancel any and all infringing posts from that person, without warning or comment.
See above.
At least the first time round, an e-mailed assurance of reformation, plus a practical demonstration of one month in length (where the group feels the need to cancel no or very few posts), resets the process.
Unless said offender happens to have the name of Andrew DeFaria, in which case any emailed assurance will be rejected with the phrase "I... ahem... I mean we - don't believe you" and posting privileges will be perpetually revoked...
=========================================================================== Points: 1. " .. small group of technical support community members .." What happened to "Q" and "Nir", haven't seen any participation by either of those two OTHER moderators - are they still involved in the decision making process? "Q" has made a few support posts in the past few months, "Nir" has been a no-show for a very long time now. This now perceivably leaves us with only ONE person/moderator to act as "we", "they" and "group" according to the guidelines.
Nah! Chris has multiple personalities therefore "we", "they" and "group" still apply! ;-)
2. Has anyone been a participant in the "assurance of reformation" section and actually been removed from the cancellation venu?
Well I can attest that, well, not me....
3. If, according to my #1 point above, this is the case then this in itself is a violation of policy and needs to be removed from the guidelines.
Benevolent dictators (and non benevolent ones for that matter) cannot be said to violate any policies - just ask Quadaffi and Mubarak...
Or 4. Two or more volunteers need to be added and involved to/in the moderation "team". Note: There is nothing to be construed as "personal" in the above notes.
Ditto.
--
Andrew DeFaria
A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general <at> lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Ed Mullen | 2 Mar 06:16 2011
Picon

Re: Cancellation Policy?!

Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 01.03.2011 12:26, Terry R. wrote:
>
>   --- Original Message ---
>
>> I'm curious as to why Chris wouldn't have responded to the issue with
>> Peter removing the follow-up repeatedly, rather than leaving it as a
>> user opinion, which by the protocols set here, it clearly wasn't.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> There are many infractions of the guidelines that are not addressed,
> only those that fit his fancy depending on who the offender is, IMHO of
> course. That's basically the point of my OP, there needs to be a quorum
> so that one persons's "fancy" doesn't prevail in adjudcating the
> guidlines, etc.
>

Actually, there needs to be NO moderation.  Just IMHO.  It hasn't 
stopped anything, and it's certainly generating a lot of extra posts 
about it that wouldn't otherwise have been made.  Seems pretty 
counter-productive.

I replied the other day to a post that was OT and was not cancelled and 
my reply was cancelled.  Huh?  My very judicious reply gets cancelled 
but the OP doesn't?

Rules don't work if you can't figure them out.  And rules where they 
aren't needed are just stupid.

Can you spell - A R B I T R A R Y?

I barely read or posted in these groups for more than a year.  I think 
I'm about ready to take another hiatus.  This is beyond silly.

--

-- 
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Never drink and derive.

Gmane