About One Of The Most Famous phpBB Mod Writers This is what happened to him...read on

[iGuest 3]

This is about one of the most famous, all time hero, phpBB modification writer, aUsTiN-Inc. And this is what happened to him for supporting (tech support) his mods on phpBB and phpBBHacks forums. Its a really pathetic thing. Read on...

 

This is a quote from the phpBBHacks owner/staff to aUsTiN-Inc

 

From: Patrick

To: aUsTiN-Inc

Posted: Thu 23 Dec, 2004

Subject: Hello

Hello,

 

Your signature currently includes an inflamatory term ("100% Anti Firefox"). Please remove it as soon as you can. Signatures should generally be for what someone is for, not what someone is against. So, intead of what you have now, you'd just put "Avant Browser Supporter" or something of that nature - whatever browser you support. No need to take down other people.

 

 

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

This is a quote from the phpBBHacks owner/staff for the second time to aUsTiN-Inc

 

From: Patrick

To: aUsTiN-Inc

Posted: Sat 25 Dec, 2004

Subject: Hello

Hello,

 

This is a follow up to my recent PM in which I noted that your signature was in violation of our User Guidelines as being inflamatory (the "100% Anti Firefox" part). Please remove this as soon as you can. Otherwise, I will be forced to escalate my action.

 

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Now this is his reply to the phpBBHacks owner/staff!

 

From: aUsTiN-Inc

To: Patrick

Posted: Sat 25 Dec, 2004

Subject: Re: Hello

 

 

Its not "inflamatory" in this case, it would be derogatory against firefox, sorry you find it offending, but there simply put was nothing wrong with it. It has nothing to do with phpBB, its not putting anything down (in a factual manner) as its just an opinion. But ive learned alot, you cant have freedom of speech & opionions here or at phpbb.com unless you're staff.

 

While im at it, ive also noticed the lack of appreciation towards ANYONE except your staff from you. Quite sad on a support site where people give their time & effort to help your site. You personally (as i have now learned) as well as your staff all nit-pick about simple things & guidlines, ok, can handle that, but heres an idea, show some appreciation PUBLICLY to all the ones who keep your site here. Since you give no support what so ever, it really isn't here based on your help, now is it?

 

This is not ment to piss you off, but if it does, it happens. This is me finally saying whats been on my mind & the minds of many others who have asked me these same things. Guess they are scared you'll do the same thing phpBB does & ban anyone who speaks up. Wanna ban me now? Do what ya gotta do. As i did this same exact thing to the staff @ phpbb.com, weird i didn't get banned but others do for simple things like stupid signature sizes etc..

 

I could continue, but i have a good feeling, its not going to get anywhere but you telling me somehting along the lines of 'this is how it is & will stay' so i wont waste anymore of our time. I'll go back to supporting your site, while getting hassled about simple things like a signature. And no, this isn't the first time, Jeremy hit me up cuz my signature had 'img src' in it.... lol... no image there, just the words.... but whatever.

 

Enjoy & Signature is changed to something more appealing.

Now this is his new signature

 

Please use phpBB-TweakS for support on anything not Activity Mod Plus related.

If i seem rude to you, its probobly becuase ive answered your post atleast 10 times already.

Everything in this post is kept intact, not altered and is as quoted by the author. The actual post can be found here.

 

This mod writer now runs a seperate forum to give technial support for his mods!

Edited May 25, 2006 by ganeshn11 (see edit history)

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

Regardless of whether or not this guy is the "most famous phpbb mod writer" or whatnot, isn't it up to any forum for those in control to deem what is or is not appropriate on their forum? I don't know, personally I dont see this as a big deal as if I was at a forum and they didn't want anything against anyone in my sig... I'd just not put anything against anyone in my sig. I also don't see how that part has anything to do with him supporting his mods...I mean personally I can't imagine WHY they would care about something so benign, but since they obviously do care I think it's well within their rights. If you create something that other people choose to use, it's within you're rights to control them as you see fit, and within their rights to leave if they disagree... this all just seems like a difference of opinion... not really sure what the point of you posting it is

[yeh 0]

I would say the owner was erring on the safe side. After all, having a rule where everyone just root for what they like creates a more "positive" environment. When words such as "anti" are allowed, it could quickly get out of hand, depending on words after the "anti". Of course, in this case, I definitely don't find it inflammatory or derogatory. Guess the phrase "I will be forced to escalate my action" does the job of exploding the whole situation.

[Alegis 0]

I used to work together with the guy for the activity mod (flash game score system - modified games etc). He is a kind and nice chap, this treatment was quite harsh and uncalled for and phpbbhacks just hurts themselves with it.

[iGuest 3]

Yeah, those phpBBhacks guys first invite him politely to their forum and after he has given a lot of tech support to his mods, they chuck him out. Those guys are really unfair.

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

So you are saying if someone is nice and supportive and gives alot to a forum, they can in turn break a rule whenever they want, as long as its not a regular occurance? Frankly I find it hard to understand that logic. He broke a rule, whether blatently or discretely, and if he got a warning to remove something from his sig he should have done so. Thats WHY they gave a warning (correction, warnings), do be kind enough and considerate enough to give him the chance to do something insanely simple like change his sig and stop breaking the rule.

[pyost 0]

I absolutely agree. Some might say that rules are there to be broken, but I don't agree. So what if he is so famous? Rules are rules. It's not like he's done something hard to put right. He just had to change his signature. If he was tolerated, then other members would like to break the rules too, and that is not good. The staff was really fair and I don't see the problem here.

[Chesso 0]

You always have to take a persons past efforts into consideration, if he has done nothing wrong before and much good, why would he go and break the rules on purpose?I find the message sent rather rude in a "i'm smarter then you kind of way" and he sent an additional message a mere 2 days later, not everyone is on the internet on every place they visit everyday.....Rules are rules but if someone doesn't challenge them they'll never change eh? I didn't much like his response though either.

[Arbitrary 0]

Rules are rules but if someone doesn't challenge them they'll never change eh? I didn't much like his response though either.

Yeah, I agree.

 

Yes, they are the rules, and just because he is famous doesn't mean he should get special treatment. On the other hand though, I don't think he actually thought of his signature as flammatory. It probably just ended up being there by whim, so making such a big (and slightly rude) formal statement out of it is uncalled for.

 

Besides, the real point here isn't the amount of past contributions. It's the fact that defining flames are kind of vague. So just when does an opinion cross the line into a flame? What if I said, "I'm 100% anti-abortion"? Wouldn't that be the same as saying, "I'm 100% pro-life"? So how does the addition of one word (in this case anti-) make the entire phrase a flame? Both cases are supporting a very strong opinion (or flame if you will), yet it seems implied the second one sounds nicer. Against and for are the same thing, just worded a bit differently. The underlying feeling is the same.

 

On the other hand though, he should've agreed to a set of rules before registering. And if that set of rules said that "anti" phrases were not allowed (and not just the vague term of flames, which can kind of be argued), then in that case he shouldn't have broken the rules.