Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why has AG6K been Banned Here ?  (Read 22923 times)
AB4ZT
Member

Posts: 177




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2011, 08:27:40 AM »

On this Thanksgiving Day I am thankful that we have a forum moderator that is willing the pull the plug when he deems it necessary.  I have seen forums/lists that really are not moderated at all and they degenerate quickly.  It is pretty much a thankless job so I will say "George, Thank You"! I'm sure there are many, many more who do not post a lot but feel the same way.

73, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Richard
Logged
AC5UP
Member

Posts: 3928




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2011, 09:35:27 AM »

If I was asked to summarize what George is saying, it would look like this:    "someone has to decide".

I was a FIDO echo moderator for three years in the mid 90's and served another five years in the 00's as admin on a political web forum. Learned a few things along the way. The political forum started out with the lofty goal of absolute freedom of speech. Within two months that idea morphed into a really bad remake of Lord Of The Flies. It didn't take long for a self-appointed clique' of thugs to routinely challenge new users regarding their ideology lest the unclean find a home on their forum. None of them paid for the bandwidth or had any hand in the routine maintenance. They just beat up the noobs and that was within the rules... Because there were no rules... Which was always mentioned whenever the goon squad was challenged.

I came aboard on a recommendation and worked with the site owners in creating rules. Then I enforced them. Often in unique and creative ways because I was dealing with a few creative types clever enough to pose as their exact opposite. On a political site it's easy to stir up infighting and there are times when those who are 'trying to clean up the site' are in fact intentionally fostering mistrust by enabling the malcontents. I learned to judge by intent, not the words alone, because not every user is an honest actor.

George won't do this, as this forum is much different than what I was dealing with, but one of my habits was to give several warnings to those who were doing the board no favors. Then I'd post one last comment in public: On a Wednesday (let's say) they'd be advised their account will be perma-locked on Sunday morning. Please use the next few days to finish your conversations. They'd usually act out in spades, which tended to reinforce why they were getting the boot. There was also a tempa-lock for those in need of attitude maintenance; typically a one or two week 'vacation'. The last public forum on the board was cleverly named Hades. That's where ugly threads were moved and flagged read-only. The concept was to keep the evidence available for masochists who just had to read those threads one more time while making them easy for the sane to avoid. I'd also terminate threads when needed. Three day warning posted in the thread, then send it to Hades flagged read only.

And for those of you who have never maintained or moderated a web forum......... Be advised that no matter what you do, someone will complain. No matter how openly you maintain the board, someone will say there's a hidden agenda. No good deed will go unpunished, no board layout will go uncriticized, and almost no one will figure out that it takes a significant amount of work to make a web forum look like there's almost no effort involved......

That's the nature of the beast.        And why someone has to decide.
Logged

Never change a password on a Friday                
AA4HA
Member

Posts: 1594




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2011, 12:54:36 PM »

On this Thanksgiving Day I am thankful that we have a forum moderator that is willing the pull the plug when he deems it necessary.  I have seen forums/lists that really are not moderated at all and they degenerate quickly.  It is pretty much a thankless job so I will say "George, Thank You"! I'm sure there are many, many more who do not post a lot but feel the same way.

73, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Richard

Ditto

Tisha
Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 329




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2011, 12:58:41 PM »

Indeed, thank you George.
Logged
AF6LJ
Member

Posts: 63




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2011, 01:57:57 PM »

Indeed, thank you George.

It can be a thankless and unpopular job..
Been there,
Done that,
Have the Tee shirt. Smiley
Logged

Take Care
Sue,
AF6LJ
When it's time it's time, and it may be sooner than you think.
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3913




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2011, 07:16:02 AM »

On this Thanksgiving Day I am thankful that we have a forum moderator that is willing the pull the plug when he deems it necessary.  I have seen forums/lists that really are not moderated at all and they degenerate quickly.  It is pretty much a thankless job so I will say "George, Thank You"! I'm sure there are many, many more who do not post a lot but feel the same way.

I agree 100%. It was way over the line.

---

I am not a lawyer, but: I think it should be remembered that the owners and moderators of a website can be held responsible for what appears on that site. Particularly once they know about it.

For example, if someone posted classified information in a forum, and the forum moderators knew about it but let it stay up, they become accomplices in it. Same for defamatory stuff.

We can all pass judgement on what others write but when we're in a different situation than the moderators or site owners, who have a responsibility to do so.

IOW, freedom of speech doesn't mean somebody else has to give you a forum. The newspaper doesn't have to print every letter.


73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
N6YW
Member

Posts: 64




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2011, 10:18:31 AM »

For what it's worth...
Richard Measures has never been able to get over the QST article debacle. Regardless of which side of the fence you view it, the story is past tense, in the archives as they say.
While I did not agree with the way QST handled the "event" I feel it is a moot issue and for some reason Mr. Measures has
not been able to move on. He has spent the last couple of decades trying to win a battle that will never be won and quite
frankly, it is sad. Sad in that he cannot let go and mature from the experience and even worse, has used every available internet platform to wage this battle at the expense of others. His choice of bad judgement was... his choice, therefore it was the moderators choice to remove his posting privilege here. He forced this situation to it's final conclusion. So be it.
In closing, let's close this thing once and for all. If anyone needs his electronics counsel, he is easily available and along with his "expertise" comes a lot of baggage. Your choice.
Sincerely,
Billy N6YW
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5639




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2011, 05:29:56 PM »


IOW, freedom of speech doesn't mean somebody else has to give you a forum. The newspaper doesn't have to print every letter.


73 de Jim, N2EY


Amen!!! To those objection to moderation on "free speech" grounds, just a reminder that freedom of speech, ie the 1st Amendment, ONLY applies to government-run entities. Private entities, such as eHam, your local newspaper, FaceBook and and your Aunt Martha can limit speech in any way they want and it's perfectly legal.
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2011, 07:51:53 PM »

For what it's worth...
Richard Measures has never been able to get over the QST article debacle. Regardless of which side of the fence you view it, the story is past tense, in the archives as they say.
While I did not agree with the way QST handled the "event" I feel it is a moot issue


IMO, QST creates problems by not reviewing things properly BEFORE publication. Then they handle things badly, generally making them worse, because they make others appear as the bullies beating down the author. I do have all the paperwork from that (still), and it is clear to anyone who understand the technical processes why they never published his side in the Technical Correspondence piece. None of his reply was substantiated anywhere except by referencing himself, and much was just a personal attack on others.   

I bowed out of the recent filament voltage thing in QST, because I saw a repeat where the author gets beat down for writing something that, when looked at carefully, never should have been published.

Quote
and for some reason Mr. Measures has
not been able to move on.


I also agree they handled it poorly with him, but they do that as a matter of what I think is a very strange policy. When they published a bad laboratory measurement of the AL1200, and when they finally realized they actually made a serious error, they asked me to write a TC piece to correct the review. Once again, after seeing how some people viewed the Measures thing, I refused.

The policy of making outsiders correct their editing or reviewing mistakes shifts the problem they created to the outside, while QST is basically a bystander. What QST should do, is adequately review what they publish before it is published. Then, authors are not publicly embarrassed.

Quote
He has spent the last couple of decades trying to win a battle that will never be won and quite
frankly, it is sad. Sad in that he cannot let go and mature from the experience and even worse, has used every available internet platform to wage this battle at the expense of others. His choice of bad judgement was... his choice, therefore it was the moderators choice to remove his posting privilege here. He forced this situation to it's final conclusion.


I do not think anything is based on hatred from the ~1994 article in QST's Technical Correspondence. He made something pretty nasty and libelous up about the original owner of Ameritron, who as far as I know, never had contact with him in any way. That was also posted on eHam in the amplifier forum. It not only had nothing to do with amplifiers, it was a lie.

There were several strange posts of a sexual nature.

He was not removed, according to the moderator, for anything but describing in detail what he claimed a child told him about a sex act between a parent and that child.


73 Tom
Logged
N6YW
Member

Posts: 64




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2011, 08:51:24 PM »

Tom
You would know better than anyone besides Richard because you were a part of the rebuttal.
As for the use of the term "Hate" as it relates to the article is not anything I eluded to, I disagree.
To be honest here, I did not like the way the entire series of events was produced in published form
because IT DID come across as bullying. This is an area I am very sensitive to because of my career
in performing arts, recording and production. This type of publishing practice is bush league and it never
moves the conversation forward in a positive direction.
However, in a debate there is always two sides to the event and it must be respected regardless.
In either case, IMHO QST screwed up BIG TIME! I cancelled my membership because of that article.
Perhaps Mr. Measures stepped into the deep water of the engineering field where he was not readily
able to debate with you Tom. I can understand why. Your credentials are well cemented. I wanted to "root"
for Richard then because he was a Ham (not that you weren't) writing an article about a very interesting subject. I wanted to believe that QST was publishing articles that had merit and NEVER once did I take into consideration
that my league's publication got it wrong... I was too naive at that point in my life.
I also believe that Mr. Measures had a reasonable amount of goodwill invested in the article at that time.
The outcome left a bad taste in me, so I quit. Years later, I came back with a renewed vigor for radio, the
ARRL & QST.
Just to clarify, I am not here to bash on Richard. He made his bed so to speak, and therefore according to rules of conduct that is maintained here, he blew it. I agree with the decision.
I think we all have learned some lessons from this story, on several levels. I hope that maybe he did too. Maybe not. Who knows.
If I may, one last observation is aching to be put forth...
We all have opinions and ideas. If we are offered a platform to express these opinions and ideas on an immediate platform like an internet forum, we have a responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount self awareness as to not offend and disrespect others in harmful way. It is said that the quill can be mightier than the sword.
I think this applies here.
73, de Billy N6YW
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3913




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2011, 07:04:07 AM »


IOW, freedom of speech doesn't mean somebody else has to give you a forum. The newspaper doesn't have to print every letter.


73 de Jim, N2EY


Amen!!! To those objection to moderation on "free speech" grounds, just a reminder that freedom of speech, ie the 1st Amendment, ONLY applies to government-run entities. Private entities, such as eHam, your local newspaper, FaceBook and and your Aunt Martha can limit speech in any way they want and it's perfectly legal.

Well, almost. They can't legally misquote you, and they can only control speech on their facilities.

But you're absolutely right in the important sense. Just as Aunt Martha can say "No politics at my dinner table", the mods don't have to allow just anything on their site.

Note that when someone signs up for an account, their are "Terms And Conditions" they agree to. If someone can't abide by them, they can get booted off. After all, they agreed to behave a certain way!

And even the First Amendment doesn't cover all speech. Defamatory stuff that's not true isn't covered.

I think that too often people forget that every right carries with it a corresponding responsibility. The right of free speech carries with it the responsibility to say only the truth.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
KA5N
Member

Posts: 4380




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2011, 08:32:40 AM »

Here I thought it was "Occupy the Amplifier Forum"

We can get back to useful stuff on the Amplifier Forum.

Allen
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2011, 11:37:46 AM »

Tom
You would know better than anyone besides Richard because you were a part of the rebuttal.
As for the use of the term "Hate" as it relates to the article is not anything I eluded to, I disagree.
To be honest here, I did not like the way the entire series of events was produced in published form
because IT DID come across as bullying. This is an area I am very sensitive to because of my career
in performing arts, recording and production. This type of publishing practice is bush league and it never
moves the conversation forward in a positive direction.

Here is the problem, and it repeated with filament voltage. The ARRL has the option of using a review process, but often one person thinks something makes sense and gives it a green light.

With filament voltage, instead of QST just looking at the facts that are DOCUMENTED and retracting the bad article with something like "we didn't look at this close and it appears it needs work, please disregard it until we can run a corrected article", they wanted me to critique the article in Technical Correspondence.

This would make it look like me, someone connected to the topic, was pointing out all the errors of the author.  This is the ONLY way QST corrects an article, even when it is their mistake. I do not understand this practice.

When they looked at the responses from perhaps a dozen or two people, I had caught most of the errors. Since I caught most of the errors, my name appeared more places. This set me up to be portrayed as a ringleader.

The second error was AG6K's. In letters to QST, supposedly in his chance to prove the other responses wrong, he rambled on and off topic, never gave references other than himself and what he heard or thought, and made statements like "engineers can clean toilets", or similar. This was in the context of an Eimac engineer who disagreed with him.

He even claimed a senior engineer did not have the job the engineer had, managing engineer and senior engineer at the plant where the tubes were made (this fellow actually worked on tube designs), and demanded that CPI Eimac prove his title and job.

While CPI Eimac did release that information, and verified the person's position, it was never released to the public. I have a copy of that letter here.

I have a copy of a letter stating he "never produced requested references", or something to the words that they asked for and never received copies of certain references. Eventually when someone calls names, and never provides references other than himself, the chance of consideration for a rebuttal evaporates. This is what happened.

None of this, however, had anything to do with eHam.

Quote
However, in a debate there is always two sides to the event and it must be respected regardless.
In either case, IMHO QST screwed up BIG TIME! I cancelled my membership because of that article.
Perhaps Mr. Measures stepped into the deep water of the engineering field where he was not readily
able to debate with you Tom. I can understand why. Your credentials are well cemented. I wanted to "root"
for Richard then because he was a Ham (not that you weren't) writing an article about a very interesting subject. I wanted to believe that QST was publishing articles that had merit and NEVER once did I take into consideration
that my league's publication got it wrong... I was too naive at that point in my life.

Everything I said was verified. I supplied references other than me, or what i heard, or what I said I read.

There were probably a dozen or two other people who wrote things agreeing with me, and QST couldn't find anyone or any reference contradicting what was said. They did a good job going out and looking for support, and the best they found were some "I'm not sure about the other points, they might be right, but this is wrong because...."

When the pile of papers was looked at, I won the door prize of catching the most mistakes. Not everyone agreed with everyone else, but the majority agreed with the context of the TC reply and could supply references that were independent of any of the participants. On the other hand, everyone disagreed with almost everything the original article claimed, including Eimac, component manufacturers, and so on.

Because I caught the most errors, I was mentioned most. This doesn't mean I am special or infallible, it just means I won the door prize in this case.

If you looked at the posts on eHam about antenna radiation, parasitic suppressor Q, photons making tubes arc, and many other things, it was very similar to QST's responses. One person stood totally alone with his claims, and multiple people disagreed.

The only way to deflect things like this are to say the people disagreeing a mob controlled by one person, or to make the topic so unpleasant others go away or the topic gets removed. If the topic gets removed or others go away, then it can be declared a "victory", or an assignation, and face is saved by the person standing alone.

The perfect way to handle QST was to simply be so bizarre in responses, and non-cooperative, that the side isn't told. Then it looks unfair, and it can be blamed on a conspiracy. A few people who do not understand technical things will buy into that, and think it was just bullying or a conspiracy.

Quote
I also believe that Mr. Measures had a reasonable amount of goodwill invested in the article at that time.

I think he believes what he says, because he has a perfect filter to eliminate challenges. Anyone who disagrees becomes a target of relentless manufactured attacks and leaves.

Quote
If I may, one last observation is aching to be put forth...
We all have opinions and ideas. If we are offered a platform to express these opinions and ideas on an immediate platform like an internet forum, we have a responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount self awareness as to not offend and disrespect others in harmful way. It is said that the quill can be mightier than the sword.
I think this applies here.

There is nothing wrong with technical debate, so long as people are technical in the responses. I'm puzzled why so many people cannot tell the difference between technical and personal responses. There are no losers in a technical debate, because everyone learns, so it doesn't matter who is right or wrong.

Everything I have learned best has been through a mistake. What I don't learn from, is talk about sex or people in technical forums.

73 Tom
Logged
AC5UP
Member

Posts: 3928




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2011, 12:38:35 PM »

One other point I should have made regarding how web forums operate.............

Whenever someone gets the boot there will often be a small handful of malcontents who continue to badmouth that person. Some will say they're just getting in the points they should have made earlier, but as it drags on I see it more as a sign of cowardice by those who want to believe beating up on someone who can't respond makes them look good. You know... Like kicking a virtual corpse is now a macho thing.

Those who support the best interests of the forum will move on to something more productive.
Logged

Never change a password on a Friday                
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2011, 07:45:58 AM »

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, as usual, it is the same gang of eHam.net self-appointed experts (one in particular) who are involved at the core of this confrontational situation. They baited and flamed to get a response they could complain about. Why does the administrator let them continuously play these games to the distraction of everyone, rather than banning the source of the problems? It is like a doctor treating the symptoms instead of the disease!  Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 08:05:00 AM by KI4SDY » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!