SoylentNews

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." :- misattributed to Einstein

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." :- Einstein

There is a lot in this Meta but it is necessary to have certain aspects of the site's operation explained in detail so that subsequent elements make sense and are understandable by everyone. The initial lessons from the Trial of Flagging by Journal Owners appear later in this Meta.

Permanent Banning

Banning someone from the site is a serious decision which is why it is rarely considered. It has always been recognised that the act of banning someone is never going to be easy to enforce. Some may wonder why banning is even considered at all, and the explanation is relatively simple. Some acts – in this case doxxing – can have serious repercussions and kolie has described elsewhere those potentially applicable under US law an in particular to the state of Oregon.

The rules exist to ensure that we maintain a viable site where people are free to discuss the topics presented in an adversarial yet friendly atmosphere. If the site's rules are not enforced then they are meaningless and, over time, they will be ignored. We are very tolerant of minor infractions but at some point it is necessary to remind somebody of the reason for the rule and that is often all that is needed. The next level usually involves moderation, possibly with an Admin-To-User message warning that the user might receive a temporary ban if (s)he continues. If temporary bans do not work then, in extreme cases, it is necessary to employ a permanent ban. Permanent bans require the approval of the Board.

Admin-to-User messages can only be used to communicate from staff to account holders; the only way to communicate with Anonymous Cowards is directly via a comment.

Doxxing

During the last few days some have challenged the definition of doxxing. In particular, they have argued that the addresses given are obviously fake and therefore are not doxxing. The rules are quite clear. It isn't possible for staff to recognise every address as being genuine or fake and so it is always assumed to be genuine and treated as such.

Kolie's amusing and robust counter can be seen here.

Sock-Puppets and Multiple Accounts

Each person is allowed to have one account which gives him the right to vote on the site. They are owned by a community member and they are not transferable nor can they be shared accounts. Additional accounts can be created providing that they are notified to, and agreed by, the Administration and are required to fulfill a specific function e.g upstart and Arthur T Knackerbracket (story submission bots), Acfriendly (journal to facilitate AC participation in front page stories) etc. These additional bots do not have voting rights nor should they receive moderation points.

Fake accounts are those accounts created to use the site often by persons not intending to participate in discussions. They are usually created for advertising purposes and might also be created by commercial organisations. As most people never even see them they cause little problem other than take up an account identity. However, occasionally they engage in activities that are not aligned to the site's purpose and they are disabled. Accounts created entirely in, or sometimes using, foreign languages are disabled as a matter of routine. Some of these have been associated with material that is illegal under US Federal or State laws.

Sock Puppets are accounts that are created usually with the intention of giving the user an unfair advantage with regards to voting or moderation abuse. They are sometimes intended to give the user an alternative account to use when their primary account would attract a ban, or to use when their primary account has already be given a temporary ban. Very often the sock puppet account is employed to positively moderate inflammatory or abusive posts made Anonymous Cowards, thus preventing the community from controlling such material by selecting a reasonable viewing level, while leaving the sock puppet account apparently innocent of any wrongdoing.

Historically, some users have created multiple sock-puppets as were used increasingly during the "Sock-Puppet-War" between 2018 and 2021. Each user employed the sock-puppets in an attempt to prevent the other from expressing his or her personal view and with the further hope that their opponent might be banned from the site. One person has created hundreds of sock-puppets. The names of many of these sock puppets contain doxxing material or express unacceptable statements.

I have been watching specific sock-puppets for some time to try to understand their purpose. As recently as earlier this week I disabled 6 such accounts. Their creator is known. There are as yet others that I am still analysing.

Real-World Politics

In the USA in particular, but elsewhere too, the political situation has become very polarised. There is much hatred between opposing political factions which has sometimes resulted in violence or other physical and verbal abuse. This site is NOT the place to continue to express your dislike of other community members who do not share your own political views. Demanding that someone be banned or continually punished for having a particular political view is abuse and it will be treated as such by the staff.

Everyone in our community has the same rights to express their opinion, and any attempt to prevent one of them from doing so is unacceptable. If you find yourself having to name a person in a comment it is often the sign that you are intending that comment as a personal attack. If a topic or journal is intended to discuss a political viewpoint it is entirely correct to do so, but that does not include personal attacks against other community members.

Journals

Journals are for account holders to discuss any topic that is legal under US and State laws, but which would not be considered for front page use. The topics do not have to be written to suit everybody in the community. They do not have to meet with the approval of individual community members who have no right to demand that the journal owner stops writing such journals or take other action to intentionally disrupt the subsequent journal discussion.

...And if you have managed to get this far I hope that what I have written will now make more sense than it might have done before and you will now understand its relevance:

Flagging Trial

The removal of non-account Anonymous Cowards from the main pages has made discussion far more acceptable to many people. Unfortunately, it has not had the same effect in the journals which a minority of ACs have been using to disrupt the discussions and abuse the journal owners and other community members. As a result, fewer people are using the journals to introduce their own discussions, and fewer people are participating in journal discussions.

Several journal owners requested that we investigate ways of controlling the abuse. It was apparent that such control would be a significant task for staff with the current software and data. The site has always had a means of removing illegal or unacceptable content from display. From the very first days of the site there has been a facility to delete comments from the database. However, the method involved hard deletes (permanent deletions from the database) but that left the child comments also inaccessible. Soft deleting (flagging) was adopted in 2024 as a far better solution. The use of the flagging is different from the community's perception than the previous system because:

• It is immediately apparent that flagging has taken place. Previously comments just 'disappeared' and were irretrievable.
• The community needs to know that the system is not being abused, which could be provided by having increased visibility of the processes involved
• Such visibility raises several issues – why has a comment been flagged? who would do the flagging? and how would it be managed?

After discussions with some journal owners they agreed to assist in a trial in which journal owners themselves would be able to exercise some control over abuse and/or disruption in their journals. There were 3 journal owners initially and others participated as their journals appeared.

There is one permanently banned account – aristarchus. Even before his ban we have over several years tried various methods including moderation, arranging for him to rejoin the community with some restrictions, and deletion of his comments. This is not new and goes back to the very early days of the site. In 2014 he was already abusing some of the same people that he abuses today. His complaints about blocked IP addresses and censorship go back to at least 2016. This alone indicates that the blocked IP addresses are unrelated to any other function and are automatic within the Rehash software. The site rules state that technical means can be employed to remove such comments and that now implies flagging.

Identifying his posts was initially marred by the occasional mis-identification. Where they were brought to my attention they were corrected and apologies made – publicly and privately. Since the start of 2025 the amount of data available to us has increased in its nature, quantity and accuracy. It is far more reliable today than it was. Nevertheless, there is no automatic flagging and a person remains the final decision maker based on the originator and the contents of the comment in its entirety.

Findings and Recommended Actions

• Journal owners are reluctant to use the flagging mechanism for perfectly understandable reasons. They would prefer an inclusive, community-based discussion. They do not want the abuse and disruption and flagging provides them with the means to control such occurrences should they wish to use it. Action: Consider starting all journals set to Logged-in Users only as default. Journal owners should still have the opportunity to open the discussion wider if they wish.
• There is no reason to remove the facility from journals for those journal owners who might now, or in the future, wish to use flagging to control abuse in their journal. Action: Leave the facility in situ. We may also need it for future trials.
• Some readers still find the reduced banner impairs their ability to read a discussion. Action: Investigate still further whether it is possible for the banner be reduced further in size – perhaps just to the comment number in a smaller font? It is recognised that the fragility of parts of Rehash might make this very difficult to achieve.
• The management of flagging will require additional data to be recorded with each flagged item. For example, if a comment contains doxxing it should record the comment and also set a flag to prevent it ever being released. There may be additional requirements as the existing software is enhanced. Action: Keep as is for the moment but be aware that changes will be required.
• The management of flagging will either require additional staff for it to be maintainable over a period of time, or significant additional software to assist in the management task. Action: If no additional manpower is available the next best option is to make the site Logged-in Users only. Reverting to a previous state (i.e. relying on basic moderation) will only result in the same outcome as it did previously.
• User requests for a flagging to be reviewed (not simply viewed) must be by the person who made the original comment. Action: How to do this for ACs is not yet identified. Otherwise the system can be easily defeated by numerous unjustified requests for reviews by miscellaneous people..
• The decision to flag a comment can for the moment only be made by a person. Despite the process being far more reliable now than it initially was it is still below the level that would result in an automatic system being viable.
• A clear policy that is acceptable to the community must be provided to state clearly when and how flagging is permissible. Action: A policy must be written with community consultation to fulfill this requirement.

Your comments are invited. ACs will have the opportunity to make comments in a journal. While AC views and opinions are welcome any abuse in that journal will be treated appropriately

It has been a while since I was able to update the community on various aspects of our site.

Back in the Saddle

Many of you will recall that I had to step back from many of my site duties to begin a period of medical treatment. That has now been completed and, although it was not 100% successful, I am feeling better than when it started. During that time I was asked, where possible, to continue to help manage the site until replacements could be found for various roles.

Unfortunately we have not been successful in finding anyone to help administer the site. It might appear a daunting task, and the job list is appreciable, but many of those tasks take literally 2 minutes to complete. Perhaps the most important role is being available to answer the queries that arrive at admin@soylentnews.org. They are often simple to resolve and again only take a few minutes, but the emails have to be checked fairly frequently, at least daily. It is usually an empty mailbox. I would be more than happy to step down from this role but I realise that some may be wary of volunteering to take on the task. You needn't be, and if several people wish to consider it the current job list can easily be divided between them. So if you are interested then please contact admin@soylentnews.org and I can start to show you around without any firm commitment on your part. If you do not fancy it you can say 'no thanks' and remain as a community member. However, I cannot say what the future will hold for me and I cannot keep the role indefinitely. I would rather have a person or two who at least are aware of how the site works before I disappear at some point in the future.

I have approached the Board and offered my services, although I would prefer to hand the role over to someone else. This should actually be as a result of an election process but unless someone wishes to step forward there is little point. The Board has agreed to me taking on the role again, for which I am grateful.

Jelizondo

'jelizondo' joined the editorial team a month or two back and has hit the ground running, having already published approaching 200 stories. Not only has he brought an extra pair of hands to the team but he has also brought a new perspective on what we do. It is always useful to have a fresh look at what we do and to question why we do it that way. Often there are very good reasons but it is sometimes easy to forget how the team has developed since the fledgling days in 2014. While he is a recent addition to the team he has been a community member from the first few weeks of the site's creation. I'm sure you will make him feel welcome.

Flagging Trial

Some of you will be unaware of 'flagging'. Staff with a specific seclev have had the ability to delete comments from the database since the site was created . This is necessary because legally we are required to remove certain material. Initially the deletion was a 'hard' delete and although the database remained in a stable condition, the linking of comments below a deletion was broken so that while they existed in the database but could not be seen. kolie corrected this to a soft delete - 'deleted' comments would not display but subsequent comments still displayed as they should. It is a far better system. However, it is a system that is still under development although the basic system is fully functional. It is a continuation of the community discussions that kolie held in his journal over the last year or two.

With the relatively small (but slowly growing) community the number of journals being used has also fallen. Furthermore, they have been targeted by ACs who in a small number of cases have abused the journals and made them unusable for the owners purpose. Flagging such abuses removes the abuse from view but of course others rightly complained that there was no community visibility of flagged material. Thus it is necessary to develop a management system which allows a flagged comment to be reviewed, returned to view if it has been incorrectly flagged, edited if the offending material can be removed, or blocked entirely in the event of CSAM, doxxing, banned users, or unacceptable material being found.

Journal owners complained that their journals were being spoiled by the antics of the few ACs and as a trial we have given the journal owners the ability to flag material that they believe is intended to disrupt their discussions or to abuse the journal owner directly. That trial is running at the moment. Several journal owners have used it, but there is no obligation on any journal owner to do so if they do not wish to. It is in addition to the current moderation system and it is not intended to replace it - indeed argument and moderation should be used if it is simply a difference of opinion. The alternative would be to make journals accessible only to logged-in users in the same way that front page stories are currently published.

Once the trial has finished we should be in a much better position to decide how the function will be managed: who will review the flagged comments, how quickly must reviews be carried out, and how will the contents be edited while showing clearly that such editing has taken place etc?

It has to be realised that flagging only affects a very small number of anonymous posters but they are intent on disrupting the site wherever they can. Unfortunately that is mainly in the few journals that are active, but it is also seen in Polls.

Once the trial has been completed it is intended to present the findings to the community for discussion and possible approval.

Finally...

As usual, we encourage the community to submit potential stories for publication and discussion. We normally approach submissions with the following priorities in mind, providing that the material is suitable for discussion.

1. Submissions from named community accounts.
2. Submissions from Upstart - the IRC submission bot. This is because an actual user has taken the trouble to make a submission even if he/she remains anonymous.
3. Submissions from other anonymous sources.
4. Submissions found by search bots.

Sometimes it is not possible to stick to this set of priorities because of the need to vary story content across the topics that we cover and, regrettably, not every submission is suitable for publication. It stands to reason that the better prepared a submission is then the more likely it is to be used, and the submission guidelines are contained in the Wiki.

We are aware of the significant number of 50x responses that users are experiencing from the site. The problem was recognised about 1 week ago and there is much investigative work going on behind the scenes.

The actual cause is difficult to identify. As of Saturday there is new software in place which is trying to find how often the 50x responses occur, while trying to correlate the occurrences with other functions in Rehash. This is a time consuming process. Some users have been assisting by reporting on IRC #soylent when they receive such a response. If you would like to help please report when the 50x response was received with a precise time so that we can find the corresponding query in the server logs, exactly what function were you doing that appeared to trigger it, and how long the problem lasted? If you also know your own IP address it would be very helpful but we understand that many of you will be reluctant to give this information.

In most cases the problem clears itself in less than 10 seconds but there have been periods of unresponsiveness that have lasted several minutes in some rare cases.

FIXED - at least until we find out that it isn't.... [Added at 2025-1005 19:00Z--JR] See also here.

Over recent weeks we have been experiencing connections from a large number of bots, spiders and scrapers. Some are the expected ones (Microsoft, Google, Amazon etc) and these tend to rate limit their requests and cause us little problem.

Others appear to be AI driven scrapers and they can result in tying up a large percentage of the site's resources. For the most part they ignore robots.txt or when we return code 429. While they are individually only an annoyance their activity can affect the speed at which the site can respond to members attempts to view a page or leave a comment. They have contributed to some of the 404 or 503 (Backend Fetch Failed) that you might have experienced recently. A small number of bots isn't a problem, but if many bots are querying the site at the same time then they can affect the speed at which the site can respond to your comment or request.

Software has been developed to block such abusive sites for a short period. In the majority of cases this will be invisible to you as users other than to hopefully improve the responsiveness of the site.

However, it is possible that sometimes there might be a false positive and you may encounter difficulties in connecting to the site. If you do experience connection problems please inform us immediately either by email or on IRC. Neither of those apply filters to connections; the short temporary blocks only apply to the site itself. We will have to contact you by email to ascertain your IP address so that we can lift any block that may have been incorrectly applied. Please do not publish an IP address in either a comment or on IRC.

If you are using a VPN or Tor it might be advisable to try another routing to circumvent any temporary block that might be affecting your connection.

From the staff, may I wish all members of our US community a very happy Independence Day and holiday weekend.

When the BBQs and beer get too much, when being sociable with other family members is getting you down, come back and join in a discussion or two.

We have some good news to share. The Stripe donation system, which some of you may have noticed has been unavailable for a while, is now fully functional again.

It took a bit of digging, but after a thorough investigation, kolie was able to isolate the problem and has successfully deployed a fix. A huge thank you is owed to him for his persistence in resolving this.

As all of you know, SoylentNews is a user-supported, community-run project. We rely entirely on the generosity of our readers to cover the server costs and other expenses that keep this site operational. Now that the donation pipeline is open again, it's time to pass around the hat.

If you find value in this community and have the means, please consider making a one-time or recurring donation. Every contribution, no matter the size, is critical in ensuring that everyone's favorite place for news and discussion can continue to operate and remain independent.

You can find the donation link here.

Feedback is always welcome. If you encounter any problems at all with the donation process, please let us know in the comments below so we can look into it. Thank you for your continued support.

Original Submission

The reason that the site was offline is that the cable to the NOC has been cut - again! It is not something that we could control.

We apologise for the problem. You could have stayed up-to-date with the cause and rectification if you had joined us on our back-up IRC - Libera.Chat, ##soylentnews (irc.libera.chat/6697)

DECbot writes:

As first seen in @Day of the Dalek's journal, and suggested to be posted as a Meta story on the Main page by @quietus, here is a call for volunteers:

You've probably seen janrinok's resignation from the staff by now. As he was responsible for large portions of the site's day to day operation, this obviously leaves a big hole to fill. It's unlikely that any one person can step up to take on janrinok's duties. It will certainly require a community effort, probably from many people.

The future of SN isn't really determined by the board or the staff. For better or for worse, the community is really in control. Despite my obvious frustration with some things, I absolutely prefer the "for better" half of that choice.

I emailed admin@soylentnews.org Friday night to discuss the possibility of becoming a staff member, and what my role might be given my time constraints. The three roles suggested to me were: 1) editing an average of 1-2 stories a week, 2) facilitating policy discussions and drafting policy documents, and 3) writing occasional original content for SN such as editorials. These all seem reasonable to me. I've specifically requested that I not be given admin privileges, not now or in the future, only the minimum level of access needed to carry out my specific duties.

Like I said, I don't think any one person is likely to be able to assume janrinok's responsibilities. I cannot. This will work best if many members of the community volunteer a small amount of their time to help. I believe the site will be better off in the long term if responsibilities are distributed among many people instead of having a single person responsible for a large portion of SN's operations.

A user in one of my previous journals asked me to lead by example. I'm doing that, and discussions are already underway with the staff. But this will work best if others join me in volunteering to help a bit.

Who's in?

Original Submission

I am resigning with immediate effect from SoylentNews. I no longer have the trust of all of the community and my position is untenable.

I wish the site and the community all the very best for the future. I have enjoyed being a part of the last 11 years and I will be leaving behind many friends.

Some might say "Break out the flags and let the party commence!"

Jan

Addendum

I have been asked by the Chairman of the Board to publicise an email that I sent to him in response to him asking me what way my departure will affect the site's operation in the immediate future.

[OregonJohn]

Of course. I will remain contactable on this email in the future.

There will only be one active editor (hubie [...]) for much of the time. This is only manageable for a matter of days. There are several editors who still contribute from time to time and they may be able to assist depending on the level of their other commitments.

I have switched off the sock puppet detection and management software, which was being run locally on my own server. Previously, this was a task that was manually done by an administrator, but means that sock puppets cannot be easily detected until they abuse the site. This is, of course, too late.

I have switched off the Spam detection and management software. That is partially the cause of the loss of confidence in me which now exists in some of our community, so it is perhaps less important. It was being run locally on my own server.

Somebody will have to answer the emails addressed to 'admin@soylentnews.org', and action them if necessary.

I regret having to resign, but when valuable community members are leaving the site and I am the reason for them leaving then it is better that I go now and give the community time to stabilise. I got it wrong and I should pay the price.

[Edited after initial Release: 02-05-2025 08:47--JR]

A Response

First I have got to say that I am both surprised and grateful for the many comments to my announcement. Thank you for each and every one of them.

I have read them all and i have taken note of the advice offered. It was all good advice, always well intentioned, but in some cases you are only aware of some of the circumstances behind my actions. I have considered everything you have said and I have made some personal decisions for the future.

For some time now I have been having medical problems. Currently they are being managed by medication but one of the side effects is that I am suffering from extreme fatigue and disrupted sleep patterns. (The regular home visits by pretty nurses are a bonus, but I digress...). Although the doctors are optimistic that they can bring the problem under control with medication alone, there is still a chance of surgery being necessary - probably not life threatening but certainly potentially life changing if it has to be employed. For the moment I am unable to commit to the level of support that I have been giving to the site over the last few years and the doctors would like to resolve the issues in the coming months. I too want it to be resolved. The problems related to the loss of trust of a small portion of our community just forced my hand and I decided to do what the doctors have been asking me to do for many months. They, at least, will be happy that I have decided to follow their advice for a change.

I have spent the weekend considering the advice that you have given me and I cannot fault any of it. But for the moment my move back to the community is essential. I am not leaving the site, but I am unable to say when or how I will be able to contribute, and remaining in this uncertain situation would be unfair on the other members of staff and the community too. If I had not resigned then most people would have thought that things were carrying on as usual but that will not be the case. Hubie, as the main editor, would have a unmanageable workload and would have to be active on the site almost every day. That is unfair, unreasonable and, frankly, I think it is unacceptable. We desperately need a couple of volunteers to help out as editors. There are around 250+ active community members and if just 2 of them can step forward then they would only have to edit on average 1 or 2 stories a day. Personally, I prefer to edit at least a full day's worth (5 stories) and then Hubie or perhaps another editor can cover the next day. Weekends we often preload most stories so that we too can enjoy the weekend. That way spreads the workload and gives me time to do other things, both on the site and of it. I have offered to train anyone who wishes to give the job a try and, if everything works out for me, then I should be able to rejoin the staff and pick up where I am leaving off.

Being an editor does NOT mean that you have any of the other tasks that I have been doing. They are completely unrelated to the editing role. Despite some ACs' claims to the contrary there is no requirement for Administrators to be Editors or vice versa.

As for the site management, the site survived much longer without firm direction and leadership in the past and it can do so again. But there are other competent staff who can pick up the essential tasks, and leave the less important ones until we have a full complement of staff again. What is important is that the site remains active. Some were discussing rewriting the software - Why? The site works and doesn't need much at the moment. There is the odd hiccup but kolie is able to restart the system without so far losing any data. Others have mentioned looking for an alternative site - Why? The community here is doing what the community should and there is no need to look elsewhere, is there?

I really want there to be a site for me to return to once my problems are sorted out. All that I ask you to do is keep making submissions, giving insightful, witty and knowledgeable comments, and pushing out journals. This is exactly what you have been doing throughout the disruption of the last few years. I would appreciate that remaining the case for the future too.

I will not disappear (or at least I am not planning to...) and if I feel that I can do something then I will do it. What I do not want for the moment is the responsibility of having to be available all the time and a long list of outstanding jobs that never seems to get any shorter.

Seriously guys, I have been stunned by your response and you need to know that I appreciate it. It was a great morale boost and it came at just the right time.

We have tried to design a site which does not rely on a single person. The board do a brilliant job (often unseen and unrecognised) and they are 100% doing it for the community. My (hopefully temporary) departure should not be allowed to have any significant effect on the site.

[Edited after initial release: 2025-05-04 16:00--JR]

Submissions - we need them please

That says it all, really.

ImportantNote:

From Firefox user advice:

Private Browsing does not make you anonymous on the Internet. Selecting a 'Private Window' does not affect anonymity.

There appears to have been a problem with the update of the Poll. Some made comments before the Poll appeared on the front pages - or so it seems. How they accessed it I do not know. The Poll released at the programmed time but comments that had already been made seem to have been lost. I am investigating the cause.

My apologies to anyone who had already made a comment. All I can do is ask that you make your comments again. We have not seen the problem before so if anyone can provide additional information that might help in identifying the cause it would be most useful. Did you access the Poll via the front page? If not, can you explain how you did access it please? Which browser are you using? Did anything appear 'different' to when you usually access the site?

[Addendum: The poll displayed on my front page has reverted to the previous poll again. If anyone else has seen the same please confirm in a reply to this Meta.] After a minute or so it returned to displaying the correct Poll.

Please cast your vote in the comments to this Meta.

A valid vote should contain a single word - either "Yes" to accept the documents or "No" to reject them. A single vote is required to accept ALL of the proposed documents.

TO OVERCOME THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM: Please include a single paragraph containing anything at all - it will be ignored by the software during vote counting. However, the vote "Yes" or "No" must be on a line all by itself.

For ease of reference links to the documents are repeated here:

• Soylent Phoenix - Bylaws (as submitted for Company Registration)
• IRC Section 501(c)(3)
• Policy
• Definitions and Common Terms
• Transfer of Assets Agreement
• Discussion Policy

[Voting closed as of 23:59 UTC 28 Feb]

Don't worry - this will be a relatively short Meta, and it is not to explain another site outage!

Community Vote on Site Documentation

In December 2024 I released a Meta which detailed the proposed documentation for the site under the Soylent Phoenix board. This is a legal requirement resulting from the creation of a new company. I repeated the links to the documentation in January. The next step is for the community to accept or reject the proposed documentation. The previous voting software is no longer available to us but I believe that a straightforward count of comments will suffice.

I will publish another Meta which will contain the links to the proposed documentation but it is not to be used for any discussion regarding the contents. Each current account in good standing (i.e. having a karma of 20+ and created on or before the publication of the December Meta (16 Dec 2024 - that is up to and including account #49487 ) will be eligible to vote. In order to cast your vote your comment should be limited to a single word - "Yes" or "No" (upper or lower case is acceptable) on a line all by itself. "Yes" will indicate your acceptance of the documentation and "No" will indicate your rejection of it. Your last comment of a maximum of 2 attempts will be the one that counts so you will have the opportunity to change your vote. Any more than 2 attempts from an account to cast a vote will be discarded. Comments may contain a single paragraph to overcome the 'lame comment' filter. The contents of the paragraph will be ignored. The vote will remain open for 1 week and will close at 23:59 (UTC) on 28 February 2025. The result will be made public once the Board are satisfied that the voting has been fair and democratic.

Existing votes will remain valid and do not have to be redone.

Entering into a discussion in the vote or justifying why you have voted in a particular fashion will nullify your comment. There has been a period of over 2 months for discussion and suggested changes.

It is important that you cast a vote. As an extreme example, if 1 person alone votes Yes and 2 people vote No then the documentation will NOT be accepted. Not casting a vote doesn't make any statement whatsoever but may result in the majority of true community opinion being ignored.

Essentially, the documentation is the same as that adopted in 2014 except it has been rewritten where necessary to clarify the meaning or intent. It also incorporates in one location changes to the rules that have been accepted by the community since 2014 (e.g. the definition of Spam which was adopted by the site in 2021).

I expect that many noticed that the site went down and, if you are reading this you will also realise that it is now back up.

The entire server died leaving a wake of Out-Of-Memory messages, which resulted in the site itself, IRC and our email all failing. We (and by that I really mean kolie!) have restarted the server and doubled the amount of memory available to it.

Of course, that doesn't tell us why it ran out of memory, although we knew that it was a bit tight, nor what specifically happened today to push it over the edge. That will probably take a while to work out.

It might take us a while to put more stories in the queue but you should be able to comment on many of today's stories that have only just appeared on your screens.

We are sorry for the inconvenience and we are getting back on our feet again. As always, a big THANK YOU to kolie for his efforts.

[Rescheduled to keep it visible--JR]

Introduction

For most people the holiday season is over. There are a few who have their winter holidays booked as we still have a few months of the skiing season to go yet, but I don't think that this affects any of our staff! So I offer a belated 'Happy New Year' and wish you all the very best for 2025.

Volunteers for the Board

Slightly less than 12 months ago I asked for volunteers to serve on the Board of SoylentNews and fortunately some people stepped forward and took on the 3 key roles (Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary). They have each contributed to the setting up of the site and getting us where we are today. However, they will soon be wanting to stand down from their current posts. The concept of the site is that the governance is provided by the community and that posts should be rotated occasionally. We are again seeking volunteers to assume one of the current positions. The roles are important, they are the most important posts on the site because without them there can be no site, but I don't think that they are particularly arduous. They are not roles that require a daily or even a weekly input. They maintain an overview of the site and they have an independent decision-making role in future site operations.

Volunteers for the posts should remember that they must be prepared to sign site legal business documents and therefore cannot maintain perfect anonymity. On the site we have not given any additional information other than their nicknames and user ids. Nevertheless, somewhere in the masses of paperwork and records that the US demands and maintains their names and contact details are recorded.

If you wish to volunteer for a post then you should have an account in good standing i.e. not banned or created within the last few months, and with a reasonable level of karma. Please volunteer either here in the comments or directly via email to admin@soylentnews.org. If you have volunteered for a post previously then it does not preclude you from volunteering again. If you have questions regarding a role then please raise them here. If appropriate, I will ask the person currently in that post to reply so that you get the information direct from 'the horses mouth'.

Once we have a volunteer or volunteers for a post we will hold an election for the community to approve and select a person for a post. This will be done openly and everyone with an active account created before the date and time that this Meta is published will have a single vote. The reason for this restriction is to prevent a mass of new accounts attempting to unfairly influence the outcome of the vote. The current Board will make the final decision on who is chosen.