@ Bobn2 - Rich42 has written:
He should never be a moderator here. Just. Never.
"Rules designed to apply to a specific individual are bad rules. The US constitution specifically outlaws Bills of Attainder for just that reason.I very stongly suspect that Mako would never wish to be a facilitator here, but were he to, he should be treated like any other person. We can't have out own version of attainder, saying you don't have the same rights as everyone else because you're Mako."
etc ..etc..with the rest of Bobs response...
Wow, the first thing that popped into mind was Neville Chamberlain's foreign policy of appeasement, especially the signing of the Munich agreement.
It also brings to mind how in this day and age [regardless as to how civil/advanced we have become] how wrongdoers have more rights than the victims.
I will say that it is splendid that you allow members to discuss these matters without editing/locking banning members who need to express their concerns. Kudos Bob!
No, I'm not. All these discussions have been on DPReview. In any case, the characterisation that bans were given for being in contact with moderators outside DPReview is wrong. I'm not saying that I agree with the policy, or the interpretation of it, but that's simply not an accurate description of what was going on. People were banned for being in contact with moderators outside DPReview and 'conspiring' to evade DPReview sanctions, which were admin policy. The bans also were admin policy and the 'conspiring' moderators got banned as well. As I said earlier, it was chaos. Anyone saying that they got banned simply for contacting a moderator outside DPReview is not giving the whole story. Just to re-iterate, I'm not supporting the policy - anything but - but that is what it was.
Really? Please do explain what you see as the similarities. To my mind there are none.
I'm trying to think of legal systems where due process isn't given - but all the ones I can think of aren't ones I'd want to emulate.
It's open to debate for a whole number of reasons:
1. Factuality. It is not an accurate account of what happened.
2. Factuality. Whether or not there was a rule against what actually happened.
3. Attribution of motive, which is purely speculation.
@ Bobn2 - "Really? Please do explain what you see as the similarities. To my mind there are none."
Yes really... I presume you skipped over that bit of history. Try thinking outside the box for a minute.
Many people [ myself included] suffered from that atrocity that could well have been avoided had Neville acted appropriately and promptly. But he was of a different mindset!
1:
I only exchange a public message HERE with the DPR Nikon Coolpix moderator, mr mako read it and not only banned me, but also banned the Nikon CoolPix moderator too.
2:
Did he exchange communication with you outside DPR? If so, did he banned you and himself from DPR? Obviously not. He enforces his law as he sees fit.
3:
As I said before, your playground, your rules. But you are not going to change our perception of him and time will tell if your forum reputation is affected or not by his presence and “wisdom”.
Hey guys, isn't it time to let this thread die. The whole ad hominem theme of this thread, l think is not necessary anymore. Time to stop dwelling on the dying corpse of DPR. I looked at another forum that was much talked about, saw who was involved and decided not to join. It is that easy.
Sure, I went down heavily, perhaps much too heavily on the guys who exited me prematurely from DPR for reasons I do not agree with, but it is time to move on. The King is dead, Long live the King.
I believe the administrators at DPR, probably desperate to stem the decline of DPR ( like most photography resources on the web right now) were just as responsible for the change in moderation at the time of the rule changes. I believe they wanted a docile enviroment free of negative talk concerning the brands in the various forums. I believe they are more responsible for the problems many of us suddenly had with DPR, than the moderators, who were following directives.
What was the public message about? As for the second part, as I understand it, that's false. Moderators don't have the power to ban other moderators.
Edit: I've found where you posted about it here and what you said about the reason for the ban wasn't accurate. You were banned for co-ordinating with a forum mod, elsewhere from DPReview, in order to evade their moderation actions also, laughably, in return for rewards on this forum. There's nothing to say it was Mako that issued that ban, and as I understand it they came direct from an admin (it says moderator, but that's inserted by the system). I have several other reasons to be sure it wasn't Mako, but I can't divulge them here (because it would involve breaking confidence with some other people).
No
The rest of this point is void, since it is based on a false predicate.
Not my playground - the ownership model for this site doesn't have individual owners. It is a collective. I'm not expecting to change anyone's perception of him. All I'm looking foe is sticking to facts and not creating bad rules based on perceptions that might be faulty. As I said earlier, a rule that seeks to remove, disqualify or disadvantage someone based on identity is called 'attainder', and should be eschewed in any reasonable organisation. There is a right to due process.
No, you're all talking about not allowing Mako to be appointed facilitator because he's Mako. Making a rule just for him. If you can codify the unacceptable behaviour that you say Mako is guilty of, which would cause him to be disqualified, then you write a rule saying that anyone with a proven history of doing those things should be disqualified and that automatically does the job, if you're right. It also stops others. That's exactly what this is about - concentrate on the actions, not the person.
Well, it seems that a lot of people see it that way. But due process doesn't apply just to trials, it applies to any time an an administration applies benefits, sanctions and responsibilities to people. That's a very basic principle on which I personally would not budge. In more simple terms it's called 'being fair'.
