turetzsr Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 ...From Mail host configuration check with WEB.de, linear posts 5, 7 and 8: <snip> And sorry for having asked "incomplete" questions before. <snip> <snip> Please accept my apologies for the rude reception you received here. I assure you that SpamCop does not condone that behavior. <snip> <snip> ??????? As usual, not a clue as to what you seem to find offensive. Noting that "we" still don't know how the missing whitespace issue may have happened. For example, there was a user with an issue with Yahoo web-mail and it boiled down to simply making the browser window just a hair wider, which rearranged the line-wraps, which solved the "missing data" problems. However, I will once again point out that a user Registered here, asked a question, and received answers, apparently leading to a successful result. That's the purpose of this Forum and once again, it worked. ...Unless one takes the remark of the OP (LenaMalina) as sarcastic, it appears Don (SpamCopAdmin) is projecting his opinion that Wazoo was rude and/ or going by historical accusations that Wazoo has been rude to others. Don has his approach, Wazoo has his, both seem effective and the sniping among those who try to help the OPs, IMHO, add nothing to the goal of assisting the question askers and just turn people off, so I sure wish such sniping would go private or cease, since none of us is apparently convincing any others of us. <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 ...the sniping among those who try to help the OPs, IMHO, add nothing to the goal of assisting the question askers and just turn people off ...Absolutely. If I were a new poster and suddenly found myself in middle of such argy-bargy I would be most uncomfortable and would probably scurry for cover, sorry I had ever heard of SpamCop, unsolicited apologies or no. And it also upsets others, visitors, one or two of whom have been incensed enough to express their feelings on past occasions, which is very incensed indeed. Not a good look at all. The genesis of these forums is seen at http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/old-spam...ary/012905.html The response of the newsgoups starts at http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/old-spam...ary/012908.html and into the next month from http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/old-spam...ary/013220.html As it happened the mail newsgoup never did quite 'go away' (it continues to this day) but the wishes of the membership in terms of providing expanded FAQs and similar resources (not to mention an archive of newsgroup posts for those not wishing to retain their own off-line copies) have been the constant goal of the forums and associated facilities. And just about everything achieved has been achieved by Wazoo and that is just about everything that is achievable from that initial (sometimes contradictory) desiderata and a bit more besides. Looking at the old NG archives - particularly the help and general archives - http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/old-spamcop-help/ and http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/old-spamcop-list/ - quickly shows a distressing number of the questions posed then are still (re)current - both in the newsgroups (where a cadre of indefatigables, well mostly Mike Easter) happily continue to answer them ad infinitem and here, where people are mostly directed to the on-line resources as was the intent and where everything is imperishable (compared to the live newsgoups) and where whatever is said is said (hopefully) with later seekers of answers in mind. And it is fairly apparent that the total number of enquiries, entreaties, comments and gripes is down by comparison to the pre-forum days (when the member/reportership was lower). Evidently many more are finding their own answers when they want them without posting. Which is a huge part of the objective. Admittedly the official SC help pages (not part of the forum) are part of the responsible resource (though entreaties from the forum may have influenced some content there). And/or the interlocking SC systems work much better than they did (which is good too, hopefully the feedback 'here' and in the newsgroups had some part in that). And/or people are better 'educated' and less 'needy' (and hopefully the resources provided played a part). Whatever, something is seemingly (hopefully) working. Anyway, there are two distinctive 'cultures' - 'give a man a fish' and 'teach a man to fish' as it has been expressed before. Surely people must be treated with respect in either. And hair-triggered, 'precious' and public reversions to old preconceptions, prejudices and personal animosities are not at all respectful. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Those are two balanced and reasonable comments on the apology remark. I did have hopes at one time that we had made an impression. However, my only thought was to make another 'apology' for a poster's irrelevant comments on another post. Fortunately, I forget the details of confrontations so I can't remember what set me off to include the 'official' address in my signature. While I am delighted when someone gets some detailed help (like that server admin who was blocked) and like to help people understand about spam and spamcop, I no longer care whether the deputies get overwhelmed with requests for help. That is something, when we are talking about how many are helped, that we overlooked. Maybe many more people are finding the email address for 'official' help. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I was, personally, somewhat offended by the implication that all the assistance offered was rude. I think my offering was friendly and helpful (albeit that I mistakenly offered the wrong Email to contact Don directly). My mistake was helpfully corrected by Wazoo and I took the OP's apology as simply recognising that some important information had been missed. I concur with SteveT that public rebukes serve very little use and offend those who least need to be offended. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 A good way to stop the sniping would be to stop the rude behaviour. A user who recently wrote to me for help had this to say: "I daren't enter questions on the forum because the moderators are too rude, especially that Wazoo guy. Just don't want to put myself through it." The "teach a man to fish" business has gotten out of hand. It's always good to add links and information that will help a user with his future problems, but it is just plain rude to point out the user's failures by telling him "As suggested in the numerous How to ask a Good question links, you don't really state how you are obtaining your data." That statement says the user not only failed to tell us how he got his data, but he also stupidly missed *NUMEROUS* links that would have helped him. That sort of negative, accusatory language has no place in a support forum. Anybody who uses that sort of approach in public can expect me to comment on it in the same forum. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Don: Your actions here have just lost another helper here and in the newsgroups. I've had enough belittling the help... I get enough where I get paid, I don't need it where I volunteer my time. Good bye all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 That sort of negative, accusatory language has no place in a support forum. Anybody who uses that sort of approach in public can expect me to comment on it in the same forum. Don, I think I learned long ago that problems need to be addressed between the individuals. Hitting everyone with the bat is entirely pointless. I'm with StevenUnderwood. Bye to all... Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 A good way to stop the sniping would be to stop the rude behaviour....That comment assumes that everyone both agrees that the behavior is rude and that those that engage in the behavior are willing to stop it. That's not going to happen, although you may affect what you wish for via attrition, a la StevenUnderwood's and Andrew's (agsteele) replies, that follow yours. Congratulations! ...Another way to stop the sniping is for you to take over administration of SpamCop Forum, then it's your vehicle, your rules. Until then, I'm treating your sniping as just another [mildly annoying] voice, unlike StevenUnderwood and Andrew, who unfortunately have apparently decided to treat you as somewhat more significant (which IMHO you are as an extremely helpful participant but not as a guide for the culture of the Forum). A user who recently wrote to me for help had this to say: "I daren't enter questions on the forum because the moderators are too rude, especially that Wazoo guy. Just don't want to put myself through it." ...And that's counterbalanced by numerous instances of Wazoo offering just the right words that helped the user solve the issue, including users who were at first offput by Wazoo's initial reply.<snip> That sort of negative, accusatory language has no place in a support forum. <snip> ...Then why not go the direct route -- take over Forum administration duties and earn the right to boot those who do not meet your standards. Don't have the time, not your role, lawyers won't sanction it? Okay, then SpamCop/Cisco have made the choice to allow Wazoo and the Moderators to decide on the tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 And to think that I really didn't want to take this up yet again in public, not wanting to flame the fires and get more folks even more upset. I was, personally, somewhat offended by the implication that all the assistance offered was rude. I think my offering was friendly and helpful (albeit that I mistakenly offered the wrong Email to contact Don directly). Yes, your input has always been appreciated. Trust me, Don's love is definitely all mine. Please reconsider, as there are plenty of users yet to come this way that could use your assistance. Good bye all. Same as the above, but with much more emphasis based on the longevity, time and efforts expended over the years, and inside knowledge of so much of the system. A good way to stop the sniping would be to stop the rude behaviour. eye of the beholder yet again. A user who recently wrote to me for help had this to say: "I daren't enter questions on the forum because the moderators are too rude, especially that Wazoo guy. Just don't want to put myself through it." Both funny and strange. On one hand, I've gotten e-mails about you also, but don't see the need to throw out those comments, again, not for public consumption. What I find bth odd and funny is that if that particular user was so 'aware' of the rudeness, he/she would also have seen what it took to actually "ask a good question and prevent a rude/stupid answer" .... what a minute, there's a FAQ/Pinned entry that reads almost exactly like that ... gee whiz .... imagine that. The "teach a man to fish" business has gotten out of hand. It's always good to add links and information that will help a user with his future problems, but it is just plain rude to point out the user's failures by telling him "As suggested in the numerous How to ask a Good question links, you don't really state how you are obtaining your data." Actually not all that unusual, actually. Anyone reading some "good advice" on posting to a newsgroup, Forum, Mailing-List, Blog, whatever would run across the simple words of wisdom ... lurk a while, learn the environment, see what works/doesn't work, etc. Jumping in blindly, showing attitude, not providing the obvious (and specifically pointed out) background data actually is a bit silly, if not a simple waste of everyone else's time and energy to then have to work to get the facts. That statement says the user not only failed to tell us how he got his data, but he also stupidly missed *NUMEROUS* links that would have helped him. To my eyes, I was thinking that this user was a "she" ... but who knows? The "would have helped him" comment isn't actually true either in this specific case. Having all the background data, procedures and steps involved in the gathering and submitting data would probably have more helped "us" provide a better answer from the start. As stated "over there" (in the original Topic) there is still much unknown about the initial problem and the "fix" other than something changed and now it works. Not good for input to the FAQ, not good for future users hitting that Topic as a search result, and not the way "we" like things to end up in this Forum. That sort of negative, accusatory language has no place in a support forum. Anybody who uses that sort of approach in public can expect me to comment on it in the same forum. And I disagree with most of that statement, especially the part of playing this crap out in public. You want to talk to the user involved, that's what the PM system is all about. If you'd change your settings to allow that and your hidden e-mail settings (Note #1) here, you could send all your words that way, and say whatever you liked (to that user) .... your continuing perceived rudeness and apparently obligatory remarks to the world about that do little to actually offer "support" .... again and especially when you seem to ignore so much other traffic (and users) in the Topics/Discussions you jump into .... as in this case, contacting you directly had already been suggested by others, which you apparently totally ignored, for example not stating whether the "admin" e-mail address was or was not valid at all ...???? Yes, that data was corrected, but .. is there an "admin" address that might be mapped to the "service" address? Your input and technical knowledge are always much appreciated here (and elsewhere) ... this feud is not. Note #1: Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. If they send you a PM or e-mail from "here" you end up being at/having the same disadvantage that the other 'users' here have .. that lack of that ton of additional information that you can look up rather than having to ask for it to be provided in follow-up traffic. That's one of the primary justifications for all those Pinned/FAQ entries 'here' ... the desire to have that necessary data for a good answer to be provided as part of the initial query, such that all that back and forth stuff just to get down to what the issue might really be is avoided as much as possible. Note #2: Just pointing out again that there's an application internal search tool provided, the Forum is indexed by several Archiving tools, and the majority of the Forum is available to be read by anyone. Registering for the purposes of posting would normally be seen as an after-action procedure because the 'normal' searching, looking, perusing, lurking, and reading failed to come up with a previous discussion/solution about the 'same' issue. (yeah, yeah, assumption repeatedly proved wrong by those that choose to barge in as fast as possible, also assumedly while they are still majorly ticked off about something, trying to post while they are in such a fine mood ... but then again, it's been a while since the last good rant .. and actually, the last Topic that turned into a rant, thusly moved to the Lounge area, wasn't actually all that interesting.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I agree with Wazoo that I wish posters would not leave just because of Don's attitude. After all, look at that poor guy who was worried about his job who got helped just recently! I don't see why Don has to post apologies. If he doesn't like an answer, then he can post the answer that he wants to. It is not good forum etiquette to comment negatively about another poster. Bad example. Possibly spamcop really doesn't like having the forum and he has been trying to chase everyone away so they have to email for help. For the people who read into posts, attitudes and opinions that aren't there, I am sorry but that's their problem, not ours. And for the people who are scared to post, that's just their excuse for wanting special attention from 'official' spamcop. Most of the people who have an attitude here come with the attitude because they are frustrated about something. It doesn't matter what you say if it doesn't immediately solve their problem, they don't like it. Many don't seem to find being asked for details or pointing out that the answer is in the FAQ is rude. I know what - let's pin Don's Apology!! Then he won't have to post it and mess up a topic with irrelevant details!! Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Just as an aside ... and a possible hint to a search engine or two ..... wondering why a search returns a hit on http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...hread.html#7793 but doesn't (yet?) see http://zeta.cesmail.net/pipermail/old-spam...hread.html#7793 It's possible that it's an issue with duplicate content, but ...???? Wondering if deleting the actual ancient files on the news server would push the indexing from the zeta server or if the search results would simply disappear (after the period of the dead-link problem??) And while I'm here, rude answer #736 .. yep, I'm the guy that set up and administer the current archiving tools and data, so yes, it'd be me that one would want to contact. The only connection that Don would have with that server is his recurring use of the X-No-Archive: flag in his newsgroup posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Philosophical differences .... it might boil down to needing to document work to collect a paycheck, perhaps other things, but .... while constructing a Wiki page, I note this entry made by Julian himself, back on 17 January 1999 .... sure seems to reiterate some of the things I say, thoughts I have ... ~-FAQ updated: Added back the bbs functionality as the [[http://www.spamcop.net/anyboard/ SpamCop Forum]]. I will be responding to email ONLY through the forum from now on. I want everyone to benefit from the exchanges I have with users. Lurkers and newbies will benefit from seeing what others are saying. It's true that the Anyboard application gave way to the newsgroups, but .... the philosophy is most definitely there, again, as expressed by the man that developed this whole SpamCop thing .... the same guy that hired some other folks to help out, in addition to his normal mode of thanking the countless volunteers that assisted in so many ways. What a difference in mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 ...What a difference in mindset.O/T - common phenomenon in civil organizations - founder/leader's vision gets diluted, lost, even (quite frequently) reversed. The 'loss of soul', some call it. Illustration - once people actually trusted banks, a situation that maintained well into living memory in these parts. But then 'we' signed off on some 'free trade' agreements (singularly ironic/oxymoronic term) and deregulated. Oh well, "Don't sup at the table of the rich and powerful," as it says somewhere, we wuz warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 <snip>Illustration - once people actually trusted banks, .... But then 'we' signed off on some 'free trade' agreements (singularly ironic/oxymoronic term) and deregulated. <snip> ...Since this is off-topic, I am following up in a new post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizBottomley Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I think it all boils down to "rudeness deserves rudeness". Just like "respect begets respect". In a support forum like Spamcop, this should not be practiced. We should all help each other and stop this nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.