There are many wonderful humans from around the world who visit the FreePBX Community Forums seeking on-topic content and not off-topic drama.
And, web search crawlers (probably ?) get fouled up when they start indexing the CLEARLY off-topic stuff in the middle of an otherwise productive thread about FreePBX, Asterisk, VoiP, open source phone systems, etc.
Unless the off-topic post violates some other part of the Code Of Conduct, then it should be safe from flagging-removal if posted in the Off-Topic category, maybe even with a link back to the OP which got forked to OT.
Itās CLEARLY interesting to observe the recent emphasis on search visibility for FreePBX and how these discussions are evolving. Sangomaās SEO challenges remain uniqueātelecom solutions showing up alongside witchcraft-related search results is CLEARLY an unexpected combination that might warrant further thought, than what is going to show up in a search of a forum post.
Regarding Jamesā ongoing ban for an off-topic post, itās CLEARLY surprising. Perhaps thereās an opportunity to revisit such decisions and consider alternative approaches to moderation that might prevent misunderstandings or missteps in the future.
For those in the community who feel disconnected from ācorporate advocacyā, weāll stay CLEARLY focused on innovation and building exciting VoIP solutions, leaving SEO and moderation strategies in the hands of others who would prefer to focus on those items.
By default, Discourse adjusts user Trust Levels automatically based on activity, at least up to TL3. These forums use all of the Discourse automatic default TL threshold values. However, moving in and out of TL4 is always a manual process, and there are certain other exceptions handled manually as necessary on a user-by-user basis. But good point ā emails only appear to go out automatically upon transition to TL1 or TL2.
I have TL3, four weeks or so ago I could do anything that TL3 (Regular) does. As of right now, Iām TL3 (Regular) and I canāt do anything I was able to do before. Such as edit and rearrange topics. So what is up with that?
That specific ban for violations of the Code of Conduct is scheduled to end in a little over two weeks from today. Per OP, posts that violate these rules, in any category, should be flagged by users and removed. Note kindly that Off-Topic does not mean No Rules.
That does seem to be one of the challenges for stewards of open source projects like FreePBX. Thank you to the many members of the community who assist the moderators with these tasks by contributing to civil discussions and flagging posts which detract from this goal.
But thatās a manual override ā technically, according to the automatic settings, you should have TL2, due to lack of sufficient likes given to other users to meet the default TL3 threshold (only 6 out of 30 in the last 100 days.)
The specific āedit all topic groupsā permission was just restored to TL3:
Allow users in this group to edit other usersā topic titles, tags, and categories
ā¦but thatās all that appears to have been adjusted regarding TL3. Please advise if the problem persists, with specifics. DM is fine.
That method probably needs an update for TL0, TL1, TL2 and TL3, such as by adjusting the automatic threshold values from the defaults.
Is that kind of like āPer my last emailāā¦ You are OP, right? Per Me, I suspect the forums would have had more likes over the past 100 days and no adjustments of the trust levels necessary had there not been silencing of long time active posters. This didnāt only silence the ones that were banned, but have had a chilling impact on overall involvement from my point of view, Iām afraid that winning this particular battle, may cost you and the community more. But, not my circus, not my monkeysā¦ But I know the clowns pretty well
The tone of the community has changed significantly the last couple months, and while I personally used to come here just by habit to look around and try to answer questions, Iāve gotten out of that habit andā¦ havenāt missed it much.
So some were silenced, and others are just becoming silent because itās no longer āfunā to help out here or even participate in side discussions, debates and whatnot.
I agree with your points on users flagging comments. Using tools like bans, shadow bans, or locking members out because of corporate sensitivities completely goes against the principles of open source. Open source thrives on transparency, collaboration, and inclusivityāeven when the conversations are tough or uncomfortable. Itās not uncommon for people to question the motives, stability, or viability of corporate sponsors. In fact, that kind of scrutiny is a normal and expected part of any corporate involvement in open source.
The better approach is to engage with those conversations rather than shutting them down. Share publicly available facts about the companyās strength and stability, highlight the positive work being done, and involve other team members to reinforce the message. This kind of response demonstrates confidence and respect for the community while maintaining transparency. It also transforms criticism into an opportunity to strengthen the communityās understanding of the projectās direction.
On the other hand, using moderation tools to silence dissent creates the perception of corporate control and undermines trust. It doesnāt just hurt the credibility of the companyāit damages the open source project itself. Advocacy for open source is about fostering dialogue and collaboration, even when itās uncomfortable. Constructive criticism is valuable, and addressing it openly builds stronger bonds within the community. Suppressing it, however, only creates division and erodes trust. Open source should always prioritize open dialogue over heavy-handed suppression, especially if the goal is to maintain a healthy and thriving community.
We moved this forum from Drupal to the current platform largely because it allowed the community to self-moderate. If something looked sketchy, users could flag it, and with enough flags, it would be hidden. The community here has always been (and hopefully still is) full of some of the smartest people Iāve worked with in my career. The video about killing the code of conduct was eye-opening and raised some valid points.
However, the bans and blocks happening now give the impression of vindictivenessāor like a kid taking their ball and going home when they donāt get their way. There may be other reasons or motives behind Sangomaās actions, but I can say with absolute certainty that if this issue had been let go, the negative perceptions surrounding it would likely have faded by now. Instead, it feels like nails are being driven into the coffin, making the situation worse instead of resolving it.
Thanks for sharing the video - largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, given it is discussing woke political issues, but the āheā you are referring to was banned because of personal ad hominem attacks (as stated reason #1 in my post in that other OT thread.)
Relevant in the video, however, was that once you get passed the click bait video title, around minute 13, where the subject changes to what are acceptable Codes of Conduct, it seems like the sentiment shifts in favor of an example project (Ladybird browser) which specifically includes a āfree of personal attacksā clause in their CoC. That seems reasonable to disallow, and these FreePBX forum CoC include this as part of the original Discourse CoC derivation.
I have a question on this since there are types of argumentum ad hominem. The most commonly known is the ad hominem fallacy. This seems to be what is pointed to the most in these recent discussions. In this scenario, X makes a statement and Y dismisses the statement by pointing out X looks like Lurch and thus has no validity. Much like not liking someoneās attitude or approach by saying āYou have a poor attitude and thus anything you say is irrelevantā. Attacking (or arguing against) the person not the subject matter.
However, there is a time when ad hominem can be considered reasonable. This is when questioning the personās motives, conduct, character, etc. are legitimate and relevant to the issue. A great example of this is Person A making a claim that Product Y is the best solution for Problem X available. However, Person A is related to Company B that makes Product Y and is compensated by Company B. Therefore, questioning Person Aās motive and character behind such claim is reasonable, legitimate and relevant to the subject matter at hand.
I can agree with fallacious ad hominem attacks being unnecessary to discussions, however, reasonable ad hominem attacks are completely different story and are even part of normal debate rules and structures. This due to the fact the attack at the person is 100% relevant to the subject matter being debated.
So is fallacious vs reasonable being considered when one fires off the logic of āIt was an ad hominem attackā?
Your account was recently adjusted from TL4 to TL2 and also was not eligible for TL3 because of not only lack of likes of othersā posts ā you gave 3 out of 30 likes to others in the past 100 days ā but insufficient topics viewed, posts read, and a few more misses. Barring an outpouring of holiday altruism at the end of the year, which we should all still hope for, it does not appear that you were on pace to achieve TL3 at any point in the past 100 days, notwithstanding the āsilencingā that happened last month, as over half of those 100 days were before that point.
There needs to be more automation of the process - the manual locks at TL3 are unsustainable - probably by adjusting the threshold values. The Discourse system is, by default, designed to promote positive behaviour, but the manual locks (outside of TL4) are more like an anti-pattern which is running amok and not in the best interests of the rest of the members of this open source community.
What we can probably both agree on is that there should be little to no tolerance for personal attacks and name calling, even when we disagree, as we should target the idea and not the person.
Is the kid getting threatening messages such as āyou wonāt last long behaving like thisā with no additional context in between the ālongā and ābehavingā part ?
Do you think that FreePBX Community Forum users should be calling each other ādisgustingā, ādictatorsā, āyes manā, making personal threats, etc., as @jfinstrom (suspended until January 1st) @tonyclewis (suspended until at least January 1st) and @nickzed (silenced until Monday) have done ? Or should it be flagged and hidden/removed ? And in particularly egregious cases such as with these three users - as well as tons of straight up spam bots we get all the time - result in silencing or suspension of the user account ?
@jfinstrom is questionable, at best. @tonyclewis, donāt know most of those posts where hidden by the time I saw anything, so withholding opinion. @nickzed that was plainly done to get the reaction it got. So everything in context, I guess.
What is interesting to me is that the catalyst for all this was trying to start a discussion about concerns over support, quality and the appearance of cutting corners. The result has been people getting banned/silenced, drama but most importantly a very important discussion that should be had was been effectively muted. Which is a shame.
There are many wonderful humans from around the world who visit the FreePBX Community Forums seeking on-topic content and not off-topic drama. 
= 
if posted in the Off-Topic category, maybe even with a link back to the OP which got forked to OT. 
in the upper-right corner.
:
