i don't see this as censorship fuzzy, unless you want to extrapolate it into self censorship and that's fine and dandy. if that were to take place more often we'd all be better off. while in the short term it might seem like things are escalating, in the long term it's this laying of the groundwork that will ultimately make the mods job and ours easier. we'll all know where we stand and i think things will run more smoothly.

Assuming the project begins to use the "X" box reporting system, this would not be necessary, but you have a VERY valid point here. I will take your idea and send it off to the Project Team and see how they feel about it. Good thought and suggestion, Thank you.

Angus wrote-

... It IS censorship when history (threads are a chronologically correct history of a discussion) is being re-written and re-organized into mod9's personal view of how things should look ...

[color=red]
When posts are move from one thread to another such as what will occur with posts to this thread, they land in the new thread in the exact order in which they were originally posted and they are organized by date, just as they were in the original thread of origin.

Even posts I choose (or you demand) be left here for a time and would thus be out of sequence (missing), will be inserted into the "history" thread in their proper order once they are moved. So actually the sooner they get moved the better. If a post is deleted for cause this will cause a "gap". That problem is caused by the posters own choice of language.

This date sequence order is not determined by me, and it does not constitute censorship.

from a dictionary:

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Vavega wrote -

i think our difference thoughts on the usability of an available email address for the moderators is based on our vision of what it would be used for. i'm of a mind that it would be convient for those who want to voice a complaint to a mod without posting. this would serve to head of at the pass if you will, complaints before they get out to the general public.

an example would be......poster A doesn't like something i said but would rather remain anonymous as not to upset me, but still has a question. he sends the email to you, ...

Assuming the project begins to use the "X" box reporting system, this would not be necessary, but you have a VERY valid point here. I will take your idea and send it off to the Project Team and see how they feel about it. Good thought and suggestion, Thank you.

[b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b]

Fuzzy the gist of it is this...If I offend you...but you don`t wish to confront me cos I`m an evil person....you mail the mod....

The Mod then say`s I`m out of order and deletes etc., and no one knows except the mod that you were the person who acted.

[b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b]

@ Fuzzy

But the x isn`t working atm, it was suggested I think as a way around the problem... I presume you`d post an email to David Kim, why not the forums registered Mod ?

People do get frightened to post against others for numerous reasons Fuzzy...they maybe in the same team, it maybe a loyalty issue. They may just not want to get berated.

I am a grown up person and I am not scared not even of what comes in my email, so there are different levels.

As I say I think it was suggested as a temp workaround nothing more till the "x" gets going.

[b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b]

Please correct me if I haven't understood this right, because I understand this suggestion with the private mails distributed by the mod, and Vavega's suggestion as this:

E.g. if I post a comment to a person here, and that person feels offended by it, but doesn't want to confront me directly on the board, this person can write a private mail to me about it, asking me what I meant or ask me to elaborate, and have the mods forwarding it to me on the mailadress, which is connected to my account here. Is this understood correct?

...The has this function already, so all they have to do is to fix that bug in the code, that makes it invisible in IE, and then make it work.

Two issues have been reported to the R@H project team and subsequently to the BOINC developers in relation to issues brought to our attention here.

1) A bug exists in the forum code that inhibits proper display of the small "X" box in the ratings area for a post that would allow a user to report posts requiring Moderator and/or Administrator attention.
2) A Bug in the forum code that causes a failure of the last post date for a thread to be properly updated when a moderated post is moved to the thread or when a post is edited.

The BOINC developers report that the SETI project has implemented a local repair for the display issue on their forum, and that repair will be included in the next update of the BOINC server baseline forum software.

The date sorting issue will be looked at but it is not considered an issue of high significance by the BOINC developers. If the fix seems easy to implement they will do so, but if it is complex, it will be considered as part of the forum upgrade/rewrite now underway, and planned for deployment at an unspecified time in the future.

The question of providing a direct contact point for Moderators "off forum" was presented to the project administrators. Basically the answer from Dr, Baker is that the Moderators can handle this in whatever way they feel appropriate.

I will not speak for the other Moderators, but I am considering how to go about this so that the users privacy rights are protected while still producing a workable plan. Workable includes providing some way for the project Admins to keep oversight of the moderation function.

[color=blue]"This project has not yet defined an administrator to handle this kind of forum reports. [b]Please contact the project and tell them to add this information in their html/project/project.inc file[/b]"[/color]

Angus asked-

Does the project ever intend to fix these problems, and if so, when?

The answer to your question was provided in the text you quoted from my original post. I have highlighted the parts you missed-

Two issues have been reported to the R@H project team and subsequently to the BOINC developers in relation to issues brought to our attention here.

1) A bug exists in the forum code that inhibits proper display of the small "X" box in the ratings area for a post that would allow a user to report posts requiring Moderator and/or Administrator attention.
2) A Bug in the forum code that causes a failure of the last post date for a thread to be properly updated when a moderated post is moved to the thread or when a post is edited.

The BOINC developers report that the SETI project has implemented a local repair for the display issue on their forum, and that repair will be included in the next update of the BOINC server baseline forum software.

The date sorting issue will be looked at but it is not considered an issue of high significance by the BOINC developers. If the fix seems easy to implement they will do so, but if it is complex, it will be considered as part of the forum upgrade/rewrite now underway, and planned for deployment at an unspecified time in the future.

The question of providing a direct contact point for Moderators "off forum" was presented to the project administrators. Basically the answer from Dr, Baker is that the Moderators can handle this in whatever way they feel appropriate.

I will not speak for the other Moderators, but I am considering how to go about this so that the users privacy rights are protected while still producing a workable plan. Workable includes providing some way for the project Admins to keep oversight of the moderation function.

So in short the "Project" has no plans to take furthur action on their own on any of these issues. But they will implement the fix when it becomes available as part of the standard BOINC package.