New forum idea: Water Cooler / Laundry Room for drama threads.

[Aldryic C'boas]

Or maybe he's referencing a general aspect of behaviour he's observed, and it's not all about you.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

@MannDude - I've only done a cursory search and not found any results; but perhaps there is something similar in the resources you use for IPB mods - an addon that would give individuals the option to Ignore This Topic as an addition to the Follow This Topic feature.  Would take a few clicks for someone so allergic to such threads they can't help but add to them to be able to make them vanish, and remove the need for an extra section.  After all, who's to say whether a particular issue about an already-bombarded topic is merely more gossip, or something pretty damn relevant people should know?

Anyways, if such a mod exists, I'd be happy to chip in for it.

 

[tchen]

Read what I said again. I was specifically refering to the overuse of the "go to the Cest Pit" for anything vaguely off-topic (or anything somebody didn't like, for that matter). You're arguing against a point I never made to begin with.

EDIT: And no, "somebody tells you to so there's probably a reason" is not any more valid reasoning, than assuming that anybody who complains is wrong.

Somewhere there must be a language difference because I keep getting that same response from you in other threads.  I do read... 

My primary concern would be that, over time, some of the complainers would realize that they've gotten the finger, and try to "get the hand too" by demanding that there be absolutely no mention of "drama" whatsoever, outside of threads in the drama category.  

To which I made my rant about showing some empathy to fellow community members and not automatically bucketing anyone who doesn't show the same level of engagement with the topics of your choice as 'complainers' who've somehow trying to 'get the hand too'.  Much like the atypical behaviour of bucketing everyone who disagrees with you into 'those who don't read'.

In a discussion revolving around the partial voluntary segregation of this message board, I think it's pertinent to address dismissive attitude both sides currently hold of each other.  It's not healthy to have a community devolve into a US vs THEM.  Your post was a poster-child of such behaviour and served to draw out my rant.

Then I proceeded to address your further supposition that such messages from 'complainers' would stifle discussion...

A good example of this going wrong, would be the "go discuss that in the Cest Pit" response to anything vaguely off-topic on LET, that went around for a while. Rather than moving things to the Cest Pit, it would basically kill off discussion, because you had to walk on eggshells not go to "too far off-topic".

Despite you not mentioning overuse, I did take that into account by default.  But really, how do you define overuse?  It's purely subjective and sounds like people who've crossed your personal threshold for disagreement suffice.  Do they become 'complainers' then?

 

Regardless, I responded to the supposition by a list of things you could still do in case one of the 'complainers' decided to post a off-topic check.  One of those options was to CONTINUE posting into the thread.  And true, someone telling you its off topic isn't necessarily right - but lets' take this into the github analogy again.

Let's say you post a comment in a current issue.  Someone in the community says you're seeing another bug - they could be right OR wrong.  But you're darn sure it is the same bug and have a debug log that says otherwise.  There, you'd continue the discussion by posting your debug log.  You don't quietly go away.  You don't fume that you're being oppressed.  Everybody looks at it and decides/#winning.

What if you don't have a debug log and don't bring anything to the table other than your intense belief that it is relevant?  Do you continue posting and sideline the issue log?  Typically no.  You might create a new issue if you feel strongly about it.  At the end of the day, YOU might be right and they were the same bug.  But the end result would not condone your conduct if you decided to continue sidelining the original issue without adding more content.

I'll admit there is the possibly that some degree of egg-shelling occurs on github.  Some people just aren't confident or extroverted enough.  But if your supposition is correct and that community self-policing causes a collapse of discourse, then OSS would just not work.

I don't think the argument holds muster and that frankly, it's another manifestation of you own stance.  You're a closet cesspit'r and want to validate that material belonging in the main threads.  Enough to drum up this FUD that community-moderation will kill discourse.

I'm also sorry that you continually feel that I don't read your postings.  I also realize that I do pick up on how people say things just as much as what they say.  Maybe there really is some cultural difference and what you believe you say isn't how it's actually coming across.  But I do know one thing...  I've obviously posted something you personally feel is 'off-topic' by not reading your post.  I've respected that stance and taken the time to elucidate my position despite my personal feelings that 'you're not reading my post' is overused.  I've tried not to be a dick and entirely dismissive of what you posted.  And I've tried to keep it relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[tchen]

@MannDude - I've only done a cursory search and not found any results; but perhaps there is something similar in the resources you use for IPB mods - an addon that would give individuals the option to Ignore This Topic as an addition to the Follow This Topic feature.  Would take a few clicks for someone so allergic to such threads they can't help but add to them to be able to make them vanish, and remove the need for an extra section.  After all, who's to say whether a particular issue about an already-bombarded topic is merely more gossip, or something pretty damn relevant people should know?

Anyways, if such a mod exists, I'd be happy to chip in for it.

I like the topic-level filtering idea much better.  I do read the occasional gossip thread (obviously) but being able to personally delist them once they become toxic or just banter would be a welcomed alternative.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

Maybe there really is some cultural difference and what you believe you say isn't how it's actually coming across.  But I do know one thing...  I've obviously posted something you personally feel is 'off-topic' by not reading your post.

Eh, this is a bit offtopic, but worth bringing up that the difference isn't cultural or idealogical, but Rechthaberei.  It doesn't matter what logic or explanation you give him, he will never admit a fault.  Attempts at reason would just be a waste of your time.

Example:  he was - and despite freely admitting to what he did, he still firmly believes that there was nothing wrong with his actions, and that everything was justified.  It's a pedestal so high that he would likely break his neck if he ever attempted descent.

 

[wlanboy]

My memory might be false, but there were just a few drama days in the last months.

I did not like some threads but somehow I survived them without harm.

For me a pit would be something like an area where bad things are permitted or some rules are canceled.

This won't work because the people you want to control will not be pleased with a small playground.

It sounds great to push them off to a fenced area but we as a community should state that this board is not the right place for them.

It is not easy to deal with them but it is better than trying to make them invisible.

 

[hellogoodbye]

Personally speaking, I think a new forum section to contain the more "drama"-ish threads sounds like a good idea, as is making it optional to see those under "view new content".

I'm not inclined towards heavy moderation like locking threads the moment a discussion begins devolving and past incidents are being referenced or brought up because while they can get redundant, off topic, or go way overboard, they can be educational for people who weren't aware of all the things that had happened before. I actually really enjoy browsing those threads (both new and old) because I learn so much from them, not just the actions or behaviours being highlighted but also about the people participating in the discussions. If nothing else, it allows me to make more informed decisions than if I simply Googled things like "best cheap vps hosting". 

Then there is the fact that while providers do overlap between WHT, LET and here, I think the overall levels of participation differ. Certain names/providers tend to stick to certain forums, and even those who frequent all of them have different demeanours depending on which one they're commenting in at the moment. A controversial thread about a certain topic may already be active and teeming with comments on LET, but it can still be enlightening to see the same topic posted here because it yields different responses/perspectives-- even if some people are commenting in both.

TL;DR: I'm all for giving drama threads their own area as opposed to eliminating them completely as they do have educational merits even if they seem anything but. This forum is friendly for the most part and I feel like having a heavier hand in moderation will only work against what you're trying to accomplish here. 

I do have questions that I want to toss out here, though: Should this go through, how are you going to decide which regular threads are proving to be too "drama-y" and should be moved? What if a thread about a neutral topic gets really bad for a page or two - people arguing, snide remarks being flung around, whatever - but it gets back on track? With a whole new section just for drama threads, are you still going to moderate them the same way as before or will you be more lax with them when it comes to locking or warning people? 

 

[DomainBop]

What if a thread about a neutral topic gets really bad for a page or two - people arguing, snide remarks being flung around

example: "Linux vs FreeBSD" threads on some tech forums guarantee a fight every time

"Drama" should also be defined.  There seems to be a tendency by some people to label anything that is negative, or exposes the faults/wrongdoings of a provider  as "drama".

 

[drmike]

The mainstream hosting industry is cut-throat, these threads are a celebration of that fact.  Why should we celebrate being a part of one of the most cut-throat industries in the world?

This is simple, you are selling unregulated commodities.  Absent proper weights, measures, certifications, etc.   There is little to no way to differentiate one offer from another.   Any provide can and will blame "experience" of the customer on nearly anything, including too often the customer himself.  This creates the constant roll of BEST provider, 10 second average ticket response, fastest dd test in the industry, etc.   That continues into back alley stabbings of the competiton.

Now if the field was level and proper testing tools.... might be able to compare some apples to apples.   

The industry really screams for official government crackdown on false claims and issue hefty fines.  Certainly such a climate would put under quite a few *fake* companies that a nick above summerhost status at best.

All I see here is drama, not even once a thread about something useful and interesting related to VPS.

You must not read vpsBoard very often.  Troll much?

 

[shovenose]

Thing is, then you will have people bitching about WHO DECIDES WHAT GOES IN THAT SECTION...

You just can't win!

 

[texteditor]

Thing is, then you will have people bitching about WHO DECIDES WHAT GOES IN THAT SECTION...

You just can't win!

we're gonna start by jailing your posting privileges to that section

 

[MannDude]

Truthfully though, I think the same people who complain about the 'drama threads' and who refuse to simply scroll past them or not participate in them are unlikely to take the time (20 seconds?) to disable the proposed forum from appearing in their View New Content results.

I'm mulling this all over. Keep the thoughts/suggestions/criticism coming.

 

[blergh]

I first thought this thread was about someone building a watercooled computer in their laundry-room. Was disappointed.

OT; Sounds like a bad idea.

 

[joepie91]

Example:  he was - and despite freely admitting to what he did, he still firmly believes that there was nothing wrong with his actions, and that everything was justified.  It's a pedestal so high that he would likely break his neck if he ever attempted descent.

Perhaps it'd be a good idea to include my side of the story, as I do for your side of the story whenever I explain to anybody why I'm banned from BuyVM services. Something about fairness and integrity.

Guess I'll explain it publicly, now that Aldryic has brought this up. One of my habits when participating in any kind of private or semi-private channel, regardless the topic or people, is to do frequent "leak checks"; stating things that participants might find outrageous, interesting, or otherwise worth passing on - and while these things are sometimes true, they are usually completely fabricated, to be able to identify them more easily. I keep track of what bits of information come back to me through what channels, and that way I determine whether anybody is being a leaky boat.

The quotes in Aldryics post contain two things:

1. Basic information about BuyVMs nullrouting mechanism. This was semi-public information, that was frequently and blatantly mentioned in the #frantech channel, by Frantech staff themselves. This is hardly 'private information', as Aldryic has been implying ever since he first saw these logs.

2. An "encouragement" (very loosely interpreted as such) to attack the IP. This was said with the intention of a leak check, and with the knowledge that none of the channel participants was likely to initiate an actual attack - and Aldryic later indeed confirmed that no attack had occurred against their network.

When Aldryic brought this up, I explained to him that this was purely a leak check. Aldryic did not believe this, terminated my BuyVM services, and banned me from the #frantech channel. While I understand his point of view, and I do not fault him for making that decision, it is plain unacceptable for him to come here and spin some kind of "OMG look at the evil joepie attacking us" story, without giving at least a basic indication of my stated reasons for doing so.

I have stated my reasons towards him, and admitted that it probably wasn't the smartest form of a leak check to do - and I'm really not sure what exactly he is expecting from me. I've buried this topic long ago.

Aldryic: it would be nice if you started behaving about this maturely. I am getting very tired of you constantly rehashing this same story from one side, and I also do not appreciate you nullrouting me from the entire Frantech network including VPSBoard, just because I am in the #frantech IRC channel with explicit permission from channel operators. I buried this topic quite some time ago (accepting data loss and a ban from your services without argument), and I'd say that it's about time that you do so too.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

When you actually admit that you were wrong to tell Topiary to attack our IP space, and apologize for doing so, I'll consider "burying the topic".  You are nothing but a skid to me, and you STILL try to justify your actions and claim you did no wrong.

Jun 02 18:10:38 joepie91 uh
Jun 02 18:10:40 joepie91 Topiary
Jun 02 18:10:40 joepie91 ..
Jun 02 18:10:43 joepie91 that is a Frantech IP
Jun 02 18:10:48 Topiary FIREFIREFIREFIRE
Jun 02 18:10:52 Topiary FUCK YOU FRANTECH\111
Jun 02 18:10:52 joepie91 DDoS it
Jun 02 18:10:54 sabu everybody stfu
Jun 02 18:10:54 joepie91 it will disappear
Jun 02 18:10:55 storm ?
Jun 02 18:10:56 joepie91 in a few minutes

Jun 02 18:13:42 joepie91 Topiary: just a tip, Frantech has an automated nullrouting system in place. If you DDoS Laurelais IP, he will disappear from the internet for a while, and if you keep doing it he will be booted from their service.
[...]
Jun 02 18:14:31 joepie91 it'll get nullrouted for ~1 hour at first I believe
Jun 02 18:14:36 joepie91 after a few nullroutes he will get suspended
Jun 02 18:14:37 joepie91

You straight up encouraged Topiary to attack one of our clients with the express intent of getting them kicked out.  Also, for the record:

and Aldryic later indeed confirmed that no attack had occurred against their network.

That is 100% bullshit.  Not only did the client in question get attacked (with timestamps dating not long after your little chat), but the drama you stirred up was one of the primary reasons for them being permanently removed from our network.

I am getting very tired of you constantly rehashing this same story from one side

I don't take sides, I state facts.  You encouraged attacks against our network - the publicly available logs confirm this.  "I was just checking for leaks" is the childish excuse of a 10 year old that just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar - not only are you insulting anyone reading with such drivel, but you've given a prime example of why you should never be trusted.

You want to talk maturity?  Own up to your actions.  Your reasons are absolutely irrelevant - ever hear the phrase "The path to hell is paved with good intentions"?  Bottom line is, you associated with skids and arranged for attacks against our network. 

This has already gone off-topic enough by me simply giving another user a heads-up of your nature, and advising not to waste his time on you.  You will never admit any fault or wrongdoing over this - so I suggest moving on now that you've said your piece and not derailing the thread further.

 

[joepie91]

When you actually admit that you were wrong to tell Topiary to attack our IP space, and apologize for doing so, I'll consider "burying the topic".  You are nothing but a skid to me, and you STILL try to justify your actions and claim you did no wrong.

I've already indicated that it wasn't a smart idea to try and use this as a leak check. I just stated this in the post above. I also stated it to you the first time we discussed this. I've even apologized for it at that time. You are demanding something that already happened.

That is 100% bullshit.  Not only did the client in question get attacked (with timestamps dating not long after your little chat), but the drama you stirred up was one of the primary reasons for them being permanently removed from our network.

Remember when we discussed this, and you stated that I'd be in serious trouble if you found out that an attack did actually take place? Remember how you threatened with legal repercussions if that were to be the case? Remember how you later confirmed to me that no attack had taken place, and that I was lucky? Exactly.

At this point you're literally making up lies to justify your grudge. I'm regretting not having had IRC logging turned on at that time.

I don't take sides, I state facts.  You encouraged attacks against our network - the publicly available logs confirm this. 

No. The publicly available logs confirm exactly what was visible in your quotes. That I've informed somebody about how your nullrouting mechanism worked. Go read them again.

"I was just checking for leaks" is the childish excuse of a 10 year old that just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar - not only are you insulting anyone reading with such drivel, but you've given a prime example of why you should never be trusted.

No, it's not. It's a very basic opsec technique, and I'm far from the only person who uses it. And indeed you should never trust me, as you should never trust anybody - that's kind of the idea behind the leak checking thing and opsec in general.

You want to talk maturity?  Own up to your actions.

You mean doing what I already did repeatedly, in this thread and in private conversations with you?

Bottom line is, you associated with skids and arranged for attacks against our network. 

That is your interpretation, and you've refused to believe the explanation I've given. Fine - but at least provide an objective view to others, rather than "warning" them by just telling them your (biased and unproven) interpretation of what happened. That's not "warning somebody", that's defamation.

You will never admit any fault or wrongdoing over this - so I suggest moving on now that you've said your piece and not derailing the thread further.

Except I did. Unless you expect me to "admit fault" for every single time you state I haven't - you've claimed that so often, that it'd be hard to fulfill that demand.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

I've even apologized for it at that time.

No, you didn't.  I even said the phrase "that's the closest we'll ever get to an apology from you" in the VPSBoard IRC.  Had you actually apologized, I wouldn't be willing to take a few minutes out of my day to remind people of who you really are.

You can tell all the stories and claim "you're lying" all you want.  Yes, most of this is your word versus mine - except the logs very clearly show you encouraging Topiary to DDoS a client on our network.  It doesn't matter what excuse you make, those are damning enough.

You've told your side, I've told mine.  Once again, I suggest you let that stand as is and let this thread go back on course.  Or open a new one if trying to justify your actions bothers you that much.

 

[GoHomeYoureDrunk]

No, you didn't.  I even said the phrase "that's the closest we'll ever get to an apology from you" in the VPSBoard IRC.  Had you actually apologized, I wouldn't be willing to take a few minutes out of my day to remind people of who you really are.

You can tell all the stories and claim "you're lying" all you want.  Yes, most of this is your word versus mine - except the logs very clearly show you encouraging Topiary to DDoS a client on our network.  It doesn't matter what excuse you make, those are damning enough.

You've told your side, I've told mine.  Once again, I suggest you let that stand as is and let this thread go back on course.  Or open a new one if trying to justify your actions bothers you that much.

 

[blergh]

 

[drmike]

Back on topic!!!!

I've been thinking about this concept of isolating the bad-industry chatter.  Actually have been thinking about it far too much lately.

There are two distinct dimensions to the chatter:

1. "Established" shady companies

2. Bullshit small wannabe companies

The Established shady companies mostly come out of ColoCrossing.   

The Bullshit small wannabes come mostly ... out of ColoCrossing.

Before, my solution was just to BAN ColoCrossing companies and those who use said network(s), novel idea.  Unfair to folks who buy from them.

My revised logic to solve 1 and 2 is a new HYBRID.

MAKE VERIFIED PROVIDER mean something.   Like the process to be VERFIED should demand incorporation, tax proof, length of operation in business, basically nearly credit worthiness.  If a bank wouldn't talk to said company, why should vpsBoard customers?  Companies like some Chicago-whatever would kick and scream about being denied status based on prior behavior, but that's going to happen.   General idea would inflict self harm on jackass operators and those with disregard to customers and common sense in addition to the tax + incorporation stuff.

Aside from VERIFIED PROVIDERS, do away with all unverified provider listings and presence.  Kill them all going forward.

In this way, vpsBoard does what the other sites don't, we vet folks at the door.   We promote qualified, seasoned and ideally mostly stable companies.