James has been banned once again

[tm1000 (Andrew Nagy)]

@jcolp

I won’t disclose who flagged things of course

Totally agree. Again thanks for @billsimon for being so forthcoming

@jcolp

Of course I work for Sangoma but I hope I’ve been around long enough to gain some semblance of trust.

You definately have.

[ashcortech]

I feel it was an honest assessment, everything I said was directed at his behavior, not at him personally. If you found it “mean” ok. Then a flag may have been warranted. At least it was the right kind of flag and truly by the “community”

Also at the time I posted it I wasn’t aware of the changes that have taken place. Had I known I likely wouldn’t have posted at all.

On a positive note, I have noticed sangoma TS being more present on the forum and helping out more lately. @slobera seems particularly active and helpful. FWIW

All that said I’m glad things are moving in the right direction. Hopefully this is the end of it.

[BlazeStudios (Tom Ray)]

@ashcortech

Also at the time I posted it I wasn’t aware of the changes that have taken place. Had I known I likely wouldn’t have posted at all.

It was addressed in this thread a day before you posted by the CTO of Sangoma. It was 12 posts above your reply. People had responded to the comment as well. Did you not read the whole thread before commenting?

@ashcortech

3 and it was: flagged by the “community”

You may not understand how flagging works in Discourse. The amount of likes has no bearing on the flagging process. A single user flagging a post informs the moderators in case they want to take action. A post can be auto hidden if

• 3 x Trust Level 1 users flag a post.
• 2 x Trust Level 2 users flag a post.
• A single Level 3 user flags a post it can be auto hidden based on that users activity and flagging history.

So moderators may not even be involved in the hiding of a post and the amount of likes doesn’t change how flags will be handled.

[jfinstrom (James Finstrom)]

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and everyone in between—whatever you identify as, and children of all ages.

Apparently, my ban has been lifted, but I’ll be honest—I’ve been disincentivized enough that you probably won’t see me as interactive here as I once was. I’ll be focusing more on my GitHub and other projects.

As someone who has poured blood, sweat, and tears into FreePBX—someone who has been in this realm longer than some of my kids have been alive—I hold a lot of passion and strong opinions. And, as I often like to remind people, I’m also a Sangoma shareholder and investor.

One thing that hasn’t changed in all my years in this industry is that there’s room for everyone. There’s no need for cutthroat competition in our own garden. Our competition isn’t each other—it’s Oracle, Panasonic, NEC, and the like. I want Sangoma to succeed. I want Clearly IP to succeed. These are not mutually exclusive desires.

That said, I think we’re beating a dead horse and screaming at a brick wall. I have plenty of criticism for Sangoma’s management, but I do have great respect for @jcolp and his history in our universe. I hope his involvement brings some much-needed fixes—at least within the community. Fixing everything is well beyond his pay grade (and his ability to resist punching small furry creatures).

I’d say this thread has probably run its course, and maybe it’s time we vote to close it before more latecomers pile on. That doesn’t mean giving up the bigger battle of making FreePBX and its community shine again—just shifting the focus to something more productive.

[franckdanard]

Hey @tm1000.
Happy to see you there.
I sent you some messages but no sound. Sad

[jcolp (Joshua Colp)]

From a logistics perspective it may just be easier to put a time on closing this thread, instead of some kind of vote. If it’s okay I’ll leave it open until 24 hours from now, unless someone posts wanting to continue it. That also gives people the opportunity to respond to you @jfinstrom here in case they have any questions on any of your potential other projects. Once closed it can also be flagged to be reopened with a reason given.

[ashcortech]

It was addressed in this thread a day before you posted by the CTO of Sangoma. It was 12 posts above your reply. People had responded to the comment as well. Did you not read the whole thread before commenting?

TLDR…

You may not understand how flagging works in Discourse. The amount of likes has no bearing on the flagging process. A single user flagging a post informs the moderators in case they want to take action. A post can be auto hidden if

• 3 x Trust Level 1 users flag a post.
• 2 x Trust Level 2 users flag a post.
• A single Level 3 user flags a post it can be auto hidden based on that users activity and flagging history.

So moderators may not even be involved in the hiding of a post and the amount of likes doesn’t change how flags will be handled.

You missed my point entirely… I know likes has nothing to do with the functionality of flags… It was a comment on the “Community” issue…

[fredposner]

@jcolp

It’ll take time to build things back up,

One way, in which you could build things up is to be transparent. If you take an action, such as hiding a post, it takes just a moment to post “A user post was flagged for xyz and I have hidden it. Please remember to avoid (whatever they did).”

After trust is rebuilt, I’m sure that won’t be necessary (but would also be a good idea to continue).

[BlazeStudios (Tom Ray)]

@fredposner

it takes just a moment to post “A user post was flagged for xyz and I have hidden it. Please remember to avoid (whatever they did).”

What happens when auto moderation is why the post was hidden?

[fredposner]

@jcolp

@billsimon submitted it last night, I saw it when I logged on early this morning, waited to do anything until others had logged on, and suggested the hide with option to edit which is what was ultimately chosen.

Don’t know… but based on what Josh wrote, I believe they need to handle flags / etc transparently.

[ashcortech]

I would imagine if it can be auto hidden, then an auto post could be generated saying that “the post has been temporarily hidden by auto algorithm pending review.”

[jcolp (Joshua Colp)]

If we end up taking action then we can certainly post a comment about it. As for if it is automatically hidden as a result of flags and trust level, I have not come across such an option in Discourse to have it post.

[adell4444 (Andrew)]

What about users that have had their trust levels lowered as a result of bans and silences that may or may not have been justifiable?

[jcolp (Joshua Colp)]

Suspensions, flags, and various other things can affect trust level. If a trust level is not locked to a specific one it can result in going down.

If there’s a specific case (or cases) I can look through the action log to see the history of it and override things as needed.

[adell4444 (Andrew)]

I remember @penguinpbx mentioned in a previous thread that in order to be TL3 you have to have not been silenced or banned in the last 6 months. I was silenced for my previous comment on this thread, and I got a notification of my trust level “promotion” to TL2.

EDIT: Found it

@penguinpbx

Per the “Understanding Discourse Trust Levels” Discourse blog post by @codinghorror from 2018:

To get to trust level 3, in the last 100 days…
…

• Must not have been suspended or silenced in the last 6 months

[jcolp (Joshua Colp)]

Yeah, trust level 3 has other things as I’ve discovered. I’ll dig more and if anyone else thinks theirs is wrong I’m happy to look.

@adell4444 I have a theory based on the action log of what happened on your account though. Your account previously bounced between a few trust levels artificially due to a past employee overriding your trust level and locking it. The lock was recently taken off and I think Discourse re-evaluated your trust level. You actually meet most of the criteria except 1 which is unrelated to any flagging, silencing, suspension. You’ve given 28 likes, but Discourse wants 30. I’ve just gone ahead and locked it back to 3.

[adell4444 (Andrew)]

and I just liked 2 of your posts so we’re square

Thanks for your help and openness. I’m confident that everyone here agrees the best path forward is one of mutual cooperation and goodwill, and your actions @jcolp help immensely towards that goal.

[dicko]

Well @jcolp my trust level remains at “member” level. Perhaps you can look into that also?

[tonyclewis (Tony Lewis)]

I went from T4 to member. Not sure how fair that is given my history here.

[tmittelstaedt (Ted Mittelstaedt)]

@jfinstrom

I’d say this thread has probably run its course, and maybe it’s time we vote to close it before more latecomers pile on

At the risk of being labeled a “latecomer” which I am reading as a slur, (implying that anyone who weighs in late is incompetent,) I will point out several things in the original screenshot that nobody in the last 100 or so posts seems to have noticed.

1. The post uses 2 labels that are " Macaronic language" If you don’t know what that is Wikipedia can enlighten you. The first was the label “Siene exzellenz diktator” the second “das fuhrer” Both labels were designed as an analogy to 1940’s Germany

2. The second is the obvious Godwin’s Law application. Once more if you don’t know what Godwin’s Law is, wikipedia can inform you but I cannot imagine any REAL nerdy tech type NOT knowing what it is.

My conclusion therefore is this:

James Finstrom’s ban for “ad hominem” was completely unnecessary. The moment he wrote “das fuhrer” per Godwin’s Law he immediately lost. Do not pass Go do not collect $200 - immediately, he lost the discussion.

Unless of course he wishes to argue that Godwin’s Law does not apply to him - in which case, he’s not a techey nerd - by definition - and thus nothing he says here has any meaning. In fact, I believe from my reading of multiple opinions of Godwin’s Law that any argument claiming that Godwin’s Law does not apply to the violator is itself a Godwin’s Law violation thus making that means you lose once again.

My observation of the “Code of Conduct” is that it’s basically an amateur version of netiquette that has already been worked out and codified decades earlier - rules such as Godwin’s Law, Principle of Parsimony, Petulance in Dealing With Adversity, and so on - which can be used to immediately determine winners and losers without the bother of arguing over reinventing the wheel on what’s right or not (for example, calling for a thread to end when you are done but others aren’t a Petulance in Dealing With Adversity rule violation) and, truly, is entirely unnecessary.

It is, I believe, the fact that the Code of Conduct is so -incomplete-, compared to the time-tested online rules (such as Godwin’s), that is root of most of the problem here and MY vote is that it be completely scrapped, and the old-school rules be applied.

And so now that I’ve (hopefully) successfully gotten both “sides” to hate me - since I’ve cut them to pieces - I will exit and sit back with a bag of popcorn and watch the arrows fly!