1. Aspires to be quasi democratic.

We could talk semantics here, but the phrase "aspires" also means it's not there yet. "Quasi" also has a meaning that seems to be the opposite of your statement.

2. Semantics aside: This is not a democratic forum. And as such I am really happy with that. It relieves me from a certain amount of responsability. For if we were to decide "democraticaly" about anything here, it would also mean that each and everyone of us members (being part of the democratic equation) has to be well informed. Any other way of making a decision is nonsens for it can not be based on arguments and facts.

Democracy is not about being well-informed... Look at some situations when the society is informed very late or even after everything is already done. Look at ACTA for example.

Quasi means here that it's not the democracy we know from the politics. Aspires - wants.

That depends on who you ask, but let me rephrase my question: For any good decision to be taken, it is necesary to be well informed, right?

Yes, I know what quasi means: That's also the reason why you discredited the point you were trying to make.

Because: If it is the case that TMO aspires to be democratic, than it is not the case that TMO is democratic at this very moment. Being on your way also means you have not yet arrived. You either aspire to be, or you already are or you are not democratic.

But all that aside: TMO is not a democratic, and AFAIK it has never claimed to be that. Furthermore: I hope it will never become a democratic forum.

The funny thing is that, now maemo.org has to stand on its own feet, it actually became a democracy: the users vote with their money.

I'm quite displeased at how things have gone and have drawn my own conclusions.

Basically tmo always been "standing on its own feet", though Nokia supported Reggie by paying part of the hosting bill.
Voting with your money is called market, not democracy.
If you're not happy about how "things have gone", I'd suggest you either do something to make things better, or you stick to your consequences/conclusions. Either way we can't help until you came up with better critics than "I'm quite displeased", it's an paralyzing comment that doesn't help anything.

And finally: even though I'm not exactly a fan of tmo, I promise you there will be always enough money to continue this forum, even if I had to pay it. It's like 50-100EUR/month, plus one dedicated guy to do the maintenance and sysop (and that guy is the emperor of tmo, always been, and there's no other way to run a forum). The rest of maemo.org infra is quite another critter. So is the question if keeping this forum running makes any sense when rest of maemo.org goes south.

BR
jOERG

First, let me say that overall, I agree with some of what you're trying to get at. Your use of examples here was quite poor (as will be come clear later in the post). But some of the idea is sound.

There could be changes made to the policy that may make things a little more straight forward. To that end, I offer the following idea to current moderators:

• Perhaps instead of deleting/editing violation posts, they can be moved/copied to a locked (possibly non-readable) moderation thread for later reference.
• It may also make sense to have one thread that's locked and readable and one that is locked an not readable, so information can be moved as needed to be presented.

I'm not sure if it's possible to lock individual posts, to prevent editing or deletion, but that may also be an option.

Now, on to the rest of the poor example you cited:

Wrong. Very often the evidence is stored.

The real problem comes when the user in question can actually delete the content before or even well after a ban. They can then edit the post(s) and lie about what it said. I've already caught Estel in two such lies using a Google cache page in the past couple years. (Search my posts, I don't delete mine, even when I'm in the wrong, was I was in some of my early disputes with Gerbik.)

How do we fix that? Remove editing? Setup a way for admins to undelete items? If that data is undeletable by an admin, doesn't that mean it wasn't actually deleted? Facebook and Google have faced enormous s**t storms because people deleted something and it wasn't actually deleted. If you can't delete your own content, how "free" is this system?

Dead wrong. And bad on you for even stating such a thing.

The forum rules explicitly state that if you create a second account for any reason, you face a ban of at least one month, and up to a permanent ban. Those rules have been in place and known by just about everyone here since before TMO was TMO (back in the tablet talk days, before I was even here).

And before you ask "then how do you appeal", there are well known e-mail aliases, and even e-mail lists that are usable to talk to those "in charge" about this. The member in question in this case clearly knew of their existence and used them for that purpose. Also, any banned account shows a page when the login that indicates how to appeal the process. (Ask how I know...)

Wrong. I personally have posted in replies to you explicitly links and copies of the posts and e-mails made by a second account Estel made. I also noted that it was openly signed by Estel using his typical signature. And in discussions in the community e-mail list (archived on the list server), Estel himself acknowledges creating and posting with a second account during his temporary 3-day ban.

This is an open and shut case. The evidence was abundant, and even admitted to by the accused (albeit with lame excuses). To claim that it was wrong or illegal is a farce. I'm disappointed in you for doing so.


Tell me: If you have someone who breaks the rules, and creates a second account from the same IP, what method do you propose to stop said person? How can you differentiate, in a programmatic way, a person creating a second account and a new person trying to log into the system and participate for the first time.

Even if one accepts that JCDenton was a separate person (which I frankly doubt), how can one tell them apart? Let's accept Estel's claim that this person was his "neighbor". They had the exact same writing style and grammar (mis)usage, what one may call translational issues. They came from the exact same IP address. The new account came into the forum and went directly to the threads Estel was banned for, to argue on Estel's behalf (or bequest).

Even if you believe it was a separate person, many living, breathing, intelligent people came to the reasonable conclusion that this account was in fact yet another account created by Estel. Why would they not? He already created a second account and openly flaunted it was him. Why would he then not create another account claiming to be Estel's neighbor (who just happens to also have an N900, and is suddenly interested in TMO.)

Currently the only tool really available to stop someone from repeatedly creating multiple accounts is to disable account creation from affected IPs (aka an IP ban). So I ask again: How do you propose to solve this issue without using an IP ban? What proof becomes acceptable? How do we verify that proof?

And again, for those banned, there is a contact method given to ask that the IP ban be removed. Just as there is for banned accounts.

There is, and always has been. Mailing council (at) maemo.org is always an option, and is completely disconnected from TMO, requiring no access to do so. And again, any banned account at login is presented with information on how to appeal said ban.

And may I note: Estel knew this, and in fact mailed council, the board, and the community mailing list over this issue. This clearly shows he knew these venues existed and that they were to be used for this process. (As well he should, being past Council.) He also created a second account, and posted replies to arguments to TMO. Not once in his TMO posts does he mention appealing his ban.

Frankly, even if you buy his line that he used the account to PM Reggie, why then did he post? I believe if he had made the account and strictly used it to PM Reggie or other moderators, and not posted at all, they would have warned him, instructed him on how to properly appeal the process, and let the account creation slide.

To stand in defense of what is clearly someone knowingly breaking forum rules, while knowing full well the proper pathways to use, is facetious.

You would not be alone in that...

May want to be careful what you wish for. I recall you saying something close to that during the election flames.


+1!

I think you have something to learn about this from Symbian-Freak and how we handles rules, warnings, bans and other stuffs.

Thanks for clarifying some of the points. Can you please point me the message to the concrete evidence as I can't find it.

Wasn't the discussion about how to providing clear rules on how it should be handled, not to dwell on what happend?