MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:48 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
Indeed. BUT the membership is the
most valuable portion of this property,
and that's something that we shan't keep,
IF we don't allow them to converse.
That's something you'll have to take up with Alex. I'll follow his lead.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:54 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
And so now you presume again. Why don't you ask for the information you want? No, really, I don't understand, why don't you ask?" You and Grael' both think I'm supposed to read your mind. I have explained to my employer that I frequently fail to recognize a need for more information, and he may need to ask. I didn't think I needed to explain that to a bunch of aspies.
I think it's because nearly
every action that any of us
took was explained. That way,
we were all on the same page.
It's hard to presume that you weren't
aware of this, when you were present
on the site (albeit lightly so) when the
recent mods were added. Indeed, given
that you weren't paying attention to how
the site was being run, one might wonder
why YOU didn't ask.
Quote:
Everybody gets the benefit of the doubt but me.
Don't whine. It's not becoming in an adult.
Look, it is your actions which have brought
this all down on you. Yeah, we may not be
able to understand all the time, but when a
fair number of people start to see something
as seriously wrong with your style of acting,
it is a sign that it's not a matter of just not
giving you "the benefit of the doubt." I've
been in your shoes (hell, I still am over at
I2), and there is always a reason.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:57 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
I find you to be excessively pessimistic, like a Republican who thinks that government can't solve society's problems, as opposed to a Democrat who thinks that it can. I hope you don't rub off on me.
Did you know that while optimistic people predict the future with less accuracy than realistic people, they suffer less depression. What a valuable lesson to impress upon people around here.
I just know what I see,
and what tends to work
(or not). And I know to
keep my guard up.
Oh, and I'm a terrible optimist.
There is nothing more depressing
than believing that everything will
turn out perfectly, all the time - and
seeing failure after failure.
Pessimists have it easy. They predict
failure, and are happy to see it come
true.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:59 am Post subject:
Whom do you think this discussion is
primarily directed at?
I know that your mind is not the
one which has to be changed, on
this.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:03 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
Yes, it would truly be terrible if
someone who supported allowing
the membership to say a couple
of curse words, in reasonable context,
were to hold off from privately issuing
veiled threats, and eventually banning
them.
I'm sorry, but this is more and more
what your actions appear to be, to me.
You know, you're really pissin' me off here, and if I'm going to follow your lead, I'm going to assume that that's your intent. The warnings about use of language had nothing to do with use of language. It was a sorting process. The warning read, almost universally, "I'm cracking down on people for use of language. Please clean it up. Thanks." It was only for the "F-bomb" as my boss likes to call it. No threats. No one was banned for use of language. No one ever came close. f**k! That would be silly, banning people for use of language! I was observing how people responded to an authority figure on the scene. The perception was, I believe(d), that no real authority figures were present. I asserted my presence, and zeroed in on the people with disrespect for authority, not distrust. Did I ban any of the wrong people?
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
It's hard to presume that you weren't
aware of this, when you were present
on the site (albeit lightly so) when the
recent mods were added. Indeed, given
that you weren't paying attention to how
the site was being run, one might wonder
why YOU didn't ask.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that none of the threads that I was looking in on were where the trouble was. By the time I found trouble, we were losing members.
And appearently, presuming is not so hard, but not presuming is.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:27 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
You know, you're really pissin' me off here, and if I'm going to follow your lead, I'm going to assume that that's your intent.
Probably not too far from the
truth, though I'm less inclined
to see our views as an absolute
dichotomy now.
Quote:
The warnings about use of language had nothing to do with use of language. It was a sorting process. The warning read, almost universally, "I'm cracking down on people for use of language. Please clean it up. Thanks." It was only for the "F-bomb" as my boss likes to call it.
Nothing to do with the use, but it was
only targeting one word? No matter
what the circumstances? I don't get
what you're trying to say here, at all.
But, getting that note, in private, without
ANY guidance being publicly announced
by Alex (and I mean to the membership,
not just to us), seems reason enough to
believe that someone was simply being
too prissy. Now, I would not have taken
the route that Sopho did. I would have started
a SINGLE thread (or put this in the Overmoderation
one) and copied the exchange, with one hell
of a WTF following. But, not everyone reacts the
same to provocation.
Quote:
No threats.
Just because you didn't make a stated threat,
doesn't mean that there is not an implicit one.
Much more so than if you had simply posted
saying that such language was intolerable (yeah,
I know - but I'm just highlighting this point again).
Before the censor was put into place, we were
editing posts to remove foul language. But that's
all. We weren't sending warnings. It was put in
shortly after we took on our duties, and we were
told to ignore the issue. It was a relief. People
probably started using it more, the more they
saw it, and that contributed to the tone somewhat.
But, these are simply not changes which can be
effected from a few PMs.
Quote:
No one was banned for use of language. No one ever came close. f**k! That would be silly, banning people for use of language!
No one said otherwise.
THOSE PMs are the direct
reason for the reaction which
occurred, however.
Quote:
I was observing how people responded to an authority figure on the scene. The perception was, I believe(d), that no real authority figures were present. I asserted my presence, and zeroed in on the people with disrespect for authority, not distrust. Did I ban any of the wrong people?
Oh oh. This says everything better
than any attack that I could possibly
make. NO. You managed your totalitarian
aims perfectly, and made almost everyone who
disagrees with you leave.
Beautiful. f***ing beautiful.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:28 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
It is an unfortunate coincidence that none of the threads that I was looking in on were where the trouble was. By the time I found trouble, we were losing members.
.
Indeed? Seems like the site was
continually expanding, and we only
really started bleeding, AFTER you noticed.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:41 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
Don't whine. It's not becoming in an adult.
Thank you. I told you they were rubbing off on me, and this time I'm not kididng. I know better, and it's creating some self-esteem issues for me.
calandale wrote:
Look, it is your actions which have brought
this all down on you. Yeah, we may not be
able to understand all the time, but when a
fair number of people start to see something
as seriously wrong with your style of acting,
it is a sign that it's not a matter of just not
giving you "the benefit of the doubt." I've
been in your shoes (hell, I still am over at
I2), and there is always a reason.
When I speak of benefit of the doubt, I'm talking about sincerity and intent. From day 1 on WP, there have been people who were absolutely certain of my neferious motivations. I think it's because I'm so f****' smart, but I don't know. My father was the first to say "You're smart enough to know better." I'd gladly give up some intelligence for some "common" sense.
It seems that people in general and here in particular don't understand the dynamic nature of life. Even I say, "Behaviors can change, but people generally don't." I'm not doing things the way I was a month ago or even a week ago. I'm a little surprised that some people seem to think that the "crack-down" is still in effect. I didn't anticipate that. I've grown up unaware of AS, learning to interact with NTs. Here at WP, I feel more like Valentine Smith, Stranger in a Strange Land, than I imagine most aspies feel in NTland.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:50 am Post subject:
Grael' was lost by the time I got here, I couldn't save her. I seem to remember her appearing to be in trouble, but she wasn't asking for help. It's not clear to me now. I seem to have experienced some memory loss when I was sick the first week in July.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:59 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
When I speak of benefit of the doubt, I'm talking about sincerity and intent. From day 1 on WP, there have been people who were absolutely certain of my neferious motivations.
You may be overly sensitive to such thoughts.
Over at I2, I get crap like that all the time,
and just shoot it back. I'm as honest with
people as I can be, but my role does cause
some such doubts. Taking them to heart too
much is a road to making them true. I would
strongly suggest defending yourself against
them, and NOT giving in to them - which is
exactly what the sentence quoted a couple
of posts up looks like.
Quote:
I'm a little surprised that some people seem to think that the "crack-down" is still in effect.
Kinda hard to tell when it wasn't clearly
announced, and discussed. Especially
when people are still getting banned.
The Terror marred Frances soul enough
to bow down to Napoleon. Such actions
have long lasting effects. Luckily, here
people can just leave in disgust.
Quote:
I didn't anticipate that. I've grown up unaware of AS, learning to interact with NTs. Here at WP, I feel more like Valentine Smith, Stranger in a Strange Land, than I imagine most aspies feel in NTland.
I too was unaware, but it's seemed like
I found a lot of people who react and operate
in predictable ways. Which was how I took the
heat off of Grael. Hell, I don't mind if people get
pissed with ME, just so that it doesn't f**k everything
up beyond redemption. This is going to take a LOT of
healing, and I don't think I have the stomach to last it
out. I just want to get things moving on the right path.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:04 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
Grael' was lost by the time I got here, I couldn't save her. I seem to remember her appearing to be in trouble, but she wasn't asking for help.
Grael would have been fine,
if she hadn't been made a mod.
She couldn't handle being responsible
for her actions. Any criticism threw her
off kilter.
As a normal member, we could have protected
her from abuse, but she tended to be somewhat
more active than the rest of us, stickying things
which appealed to (or were started by) her, and
locking/trimming threads which were not going the
way that she liked. Maybe that would have been
fine (though I felt she was doing WAY too much,
of course), she couldn't take the criticism, especially
when it leaked into personal issues. Given how fragile
she was, it just wasn't a good fit.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:04 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
Oh oh. This says everything better
than any attack that I could possibly
make. NO. You managed your totalitarian
aims perfectly, and made almost everyone who
disagrees with you leave.
Beautiful. f***ing beautiful.
I came in and found a mess. I was surpirsed, no, shocked. I needed to develop a stragety to quickly and efficiently target the worst offenders, which I theorized would be the ones with the least respect for authority, i.e. Alex's rules. I have nothing personal against those who reject authority, as I've said, been there done that, I understand. But this is private, regulated property. Evaulating the end results, (banning 4 undesirables), it worked perfectly. However, I did fail to anticipate the collateral damage. No totalitarian aims, just finding and taking out the trash and restoring peace among the members. If they all hate me, that's fine. At least they're not at each others throats. If I need to resign to fix this, I will. I'm the guy that does something really stupid like throwing himself on the grenade. And don't say I am the grenade. I mean, if self-sacrifice becomes necessary, I'll be there. I can take one for the team. Isn't that what teamwork's all about?
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:08 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
I'm less inclined
to see our views as an absolute
dichotomy now.
That's what happens when you inquire instead of assume.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:13 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
Kinda hard to tell when it wasn't clearly
announced, and discussed. Especially
when people are still getting banned.
I haven't banned anybody, not lately. Alex asked me to stop deleting posts, and naturally I complied. Three days later he asked me again. Speculations abound.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:18 am Post subject:
I am sensitive to such. I feel my actions are really very open. I'll never deny anything I've done, though I may not discuss the details. People can see what I do, but they have to take my word for my motivations. Many seem to be uncomfortable with that. Trust issues, I suppose. And I do seem to be a little hard to believe, even for aspies.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:20 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
I came in and found a mess.
I disagree. You found what this site
naturally evolved to, in the presence
of free speech. It will become similar,
time and again. I have found much more
poisonous members here than sopho, starbuline
and santa_clause. Ones who have NO compunction
against saying FAR more hurtful things (and
no, I shan't point you to them - even if
I don't care for them). RichardBenson was
bound to crack someday, again. I think that
banning him might have been avoided, but
I may be wrong - he could be "talked down"
as Quatermass puts it, when needed.
Without the current fear, it will return to what
is natural.
Quote:
... it worked perfectly. However, I did fail to anticipate the collateral damage.
Sounds like Japan trying to describe the Pearl Harbor
attack.
Yeah, you managed to taunt some members
to blow up. Wonderful. And now the price
is being paid.
Quote:
...just finding and taking out the trash and restoring peace among the members.
By removing the dissenting viewpoints?
Oh, and I'd rather you not refer to people
as trash. Just something personal. Sounds
too much like police-talk. And you KNOW
what I think of them.
Quote:
And don't say I am the grenade.
No? You broke the natural state here,
and have caused an exodus. Look, what
you did wasn't doing anyone any favors.
AT THE BEST, it was poorly executed -
presuming, of course, that Alex agreed
that some such stunt needed doing (Though
I suspect that I could manage such a thing,
I would certainly have stepped down rather
than inhibit the free speech - in case anyone
gets any ideas). I think that it's an apt analogy.
Quote:
I mean, if self-sacrifice becomes necessary, I'll be there. I can take one for the team. Isn't that what teamwork's all about?
I don't know. I'm planning on stepping down,
no matter what. But, I'm sticking around long
enough to try and help y'all resolve this. And,
I'm really worried that the site is going to be
lacking a lot of the personality that it once had,
REGARDLESS of the steps taken. But, in 6 mos
to a year, it may recover it's free spirit, with luck.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:22 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
I haven't banned anybody, not lately. Alex asked me to stop deleting posts, and naturally I complied. Three days later he asked me again. Speculations abound.
Indeed. Alex needs to note what he is
doing, every bit as much as the rest of
us. Not as a matter of accountability, but
so that we don't end up at one anothers'
throats, as is reputed to have happened
in the past.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:23 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
This is going to take a LOT of
healing, and I don't think I have the stomach to last it
out. I just want to get things moving on the right path.
I guess it's needless to say that I'm a little more optimistic.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:28 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
Grael would have been fine,
if she hadn't been made a mod.
She couldn't handle being responsible
for her actions. Any criticism threw her
off kilter.
As a normal member, we could have protected
her from abuse, but she tended to be somewhat
more active than the rest of us, stickying things
which appealed to (or were started by) her, and
locking/trimming threads which were not going the
way that she liked. Maybe that would have been
fine (though I felt she was doing WAY too much,
of course), she couldn't take the criticism, especially
when it leaked into personal issues. Given how fragile
she was, it just wasn't a good fit.
I had severe reservations about her as a mod, (that's putting it mildly) but I'm not incline to criticize Alex's decisions after the fact.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:31 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
I am sensitive to such. I feel my actions are really very open. I'll never deny anything I've done, though I may not discuss the details. People can see what I do, but they have to take my word for my motivations. Many seem to be uncomfortable with that. Trust issues, I suppose. And I do seem to be a little hard to believe, even for aspies.
Motivations are unimportant.
Actions are all that really matter.
That said, I DON'T presume that you
think that you're being totalitarian. It's
like evil - no one really thinks themselves
that way. BUT, that one paragraph sure
expresses it better than anything that I
could have possibly stated. There is simply
no need for further comment. It shows what
YOU think of your motivations, which when
combined with the actions, is damning.
Still, even if one wanted this site to work
like some sort of well oiled machine, if one
wanted the effects of the 'crack down' the
way to do so was through openness. I'm
not saying that you had that option. Just if
indeed restrictions are to be made, they should
have been introduced slowly, and openly.
There was no great need of such, in the
site's free state. No one was getting banned
for anything but the most serious (site threaten -
ing) misbehavior. But, if there are going to be
serious consequences to some foul language,
or flaming the staff, or really whatever, that has
to be done openly.
Quatermass
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:33 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
I have admonished QM for making a "veiled" threat.
When have I done that to you? Or are you talking about me making a veiled threat to another member?
MrMark, don't get me wrong, until this wee fiasco began, I had the utmost respect for you. And I still respect you as a valued member of WP and a human being. I have also grown out (to a certain degree) of forum immaturity (the major catalysts being my modship, as well as an argument with ahayes), but obviously in a different direction to you. I am not convinced of your nefariousness, I think you are merely quixotic at worst. I mean heavy-handed.
As for Graelwyn, I agree that she was lost. She keeps on coming back, but it only takes a bit of a niggling and some alcohol, and she's like a tornado. I tried to save her, but she lashed out at me. Hurt me, so many times. Forgiveness, in theory, should be unlimited. I, however, am not. I have limited attention-spans, limited patience and limited forgiveness.
I also am gratified that you at least understand that you failed to predict the collateral damage of the initial bannings. This has been one of my concerns with you.
Actually, this whole sh** started going down first with our banning of richardbenson and his subsequent unbanning on Alex's request. Then bizarre and, umm, who was it again? One of the members of I2 had a go at Graelwyn about her relationship with Flagg, calling her a pedophile, etc. The actions surrounding that fiasco merely deepened mod distrust (and disrespect, but I think those who disrespect the mods even a little are actually in more or less the majority here).
Basically, I think you came in at the wrong time. The 4 bannings was merely pouring fuel on the flames that were already, if not burning by that point in time, were certainly smouldering. You were not the cause. Merely a catalyst for a quickening of events.
So, here are my concerns all up:
*Lack of semi-open discussion of bannings. It's like banning the discussion of nominations in the Big Brother house, it's a pressure-cooker situation ready to cause more trouble when it finally breaks up. This year in the Aussie series, they apparently have a room where two people may enter at a time and discuss nominations there, but at no other time or place. Please give your reasons. That way, we can at least mollify the more reasonable members. You are only hard to believe, MrMark, because you do not reveal your reasons as readily.
*Banning the 'suicidal'. By 'suicidal', I mean those members who are normally fine to a degree, but due to meltdown, make threads in order to ban themselves off the BBS. Spammers and trolls are our purview to ban. If we can talk down the 'suicidal' members with reasonable prospect of success, then let us do so.
Hopefully, we can get through this sh**, we can keep WP safe for all members. I do not intend to resign my modship as long as I can keep this forum civil, safe and welcoming. I also want to see it done with the best colleagues possible.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:35 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
I had severe reservations about her as a mod, (that's putting it mildly) but I'm not incline to criticize Alex's decisions after the fact.
I didn't, before the fact.
And that's the thing. It's
difficult to see what one should
do, in such a case. I barely knew
her, but she was on a lot, which seemed
the major consideration, as far as some
of us were concerned.
There WERE opportunities for allowing her
to resign, which probably should have
been taken.
Same goes here. I'd be a lot less annoying,
if I had been simply taken on my statement.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:49 am Post subject:
Quatermass wrote:
I am not convinced of your nefariousness, I think you are merely quixotic at worst. I mean heavy-handed.
Might be what I mean by totalitarian.
Remember, I don't much like cops.
Quote:
Actually, this whole sh** started going down first with our banning of richardbenson and his subsequent unbanning on Alex's request.
From the discussion that night, that was
meant to be a temp ban anyhow. A cool
off. No doubt that he deserved it, but the
objection that Alex had was with the seizure
of power, I think, more than the decision.
Quote:
...but I think those who disrespect the mods even a little are actually in more or less the majority here).
Not even now, I think. Most are sheep.
And before the recent actions, it was only
a TINY group, who had no fear saying the
most terrible things about us. Which is how
it should be. Most of it, almost purely personal -
I suspect because none of their 'favorites' were
picked. If you look, they targeted the most active
of the new set of mods, very heavily. Ah, they had
their reasons, but I suspect that they saw some
'unfairness'.
Quote:
Basically, I think you came in at the wrong time. The 4 bannings was merely pouring fuel on the flames that were already, if not burning by that point in time, were certainly smouldering. You were not the cause. Merely a catalyst for a quickening of events.
I disagree. The issues are almost completely
unrelated. With the exception of RichardBenson,
there is NO overlap whatsoever. Those who exploded
over this were almost entirely a different set of people.
For gods' sake, two mods, who had never been a serious
problem, got banned over this, and I'm leaving. No, this
one cut directly at the core values of the site - at least what
we thought they were.
Quote:
*Lack of semi-open discussion of bannings.
No matter what, we have to be aware of one another's
actions. Anything less is insanity. I think that for things
to be calmed down, the membership has to be mostly aware.
Quote:
*Banning the 'suicidal'.
I would suggest bans for such, if nothing
else works. Noted here. Then readmission
after a brief time. To see if they desire to
remain in the community.
Quote:
Hopefully, we can get through this sh**
Amen to that.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:21 am Post subject:
Sounds like Japan trying to describe the Pearl Harbor
attack.
Yeah, you managed to taunt some members
to blow up. Wonderful. And now the price
is being paid.
Quote:
...just finding and taking out the trash and restoring peace among the members.
By removing the dissenting viewpoints?
Oh, and I'd rather you not refer to people
as trash. Just something personal. Sounds
too much like police-talk. And you KNOW
what I think of them.
Quote:
And don't say I am the grenade.
No? You broke the natural state here,
and have caused an exodus. Look, what
you did wasn't doing anyone any favors.
AT THE BEST, it was poorly executed -
presuming, of course, that Alex agreed
that some such stunt needed doing (Though
I suspect that I could manage such a thing,
I would certainly have stepped down rather
than inhibit the free speech - in case anyone
gets any ideas). I think that it's an apt analogy.
Quote:
I mean, if self-sacrifice becomes necessary, I'll be there. I can take one for the team. Isn't that what teamwork's all about?
I don't know. I'm planning on stepping down,
no matter what. But, I'm sticking around long
enough to try and help y'all resolve this. And,
I'm really worried that the site is going to be
lacking a lot of the personality that it once had,
REGARDLESS of the steps taken. But, in 6 mos
to a year, it may recover it's free spirit, with luck.
I'm confident it will. There's a cycle to these things.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:24 am Post subject:
Mr. Mark wrote:
I'm confident it will. There's a cycle to these things.
So, you think that the site needs this
trauma every few months?
I'm beginning to wonder about whether
I'm wrong about something then.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:27 am Post subject:
Quatermass wrote:
When have I done that to you? Or are you talking about me making a veiled threat to another member?
Of course. You remember, I said you should be clear and direct, no misunderstandings, and be prepared to follow through.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:30 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
I didn't, before the fact.
And that's the thing. It's
difficult to see what one should
do, in such a case. I barely knew
her, but she was on a lot, which seemed
the major consideration, as far as some
of us were concerned.
There WERE opportunities for allowing her
to resign, which probably should have
been taken.
Same goes here. I'd be a lot less annoying,
if I had been simply taken on my statement.
Yeah, well, he and I discussed the selection process a little bit, long after the fact.
alex
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:33 am Post subject:
This whole sequence of events occurs periodically on almost all larger forum sites. Someone lashes out, gets banned, starts a new forum, tries to drag friends along, eventually realizes that running a forum is difficult, and somewhere down the line tries to come back and apologize.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:36 am Post subject:
calandale wrote:
I disagree. The issues are almost completely
unrelated. With the exception of RichardBenson,
there is NO overlap whatsoever. Those who exploded
over this were almost entirely a different set of people.
For gods' sake, two mods, who had never been a serious
problem, got banned over this, and I'm leaving. No, this
one cut directly at the core values of the site - at least what
we thought they were.
Free speech is not one of our core values. I suspect some outsiders brought that value in from outside. That service is being provided by other sites. Perhaps the capitalist in Alex is looking to become more competitive.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:38 am Post subject:
alex wrote:
This whole sequence of events occurs periodically on almost all larger forum sites. Someone lashes out, gets banned, starts a new forum, tries to drag friends along, eventually realizes that running a forum is difficult, and somewhere down the line tries to come back and apologize.
Ah, the voice of experience. Good morning Alex.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:47 am Post subject:
alex wrote:
This whole sequence of events occurs periodically on almost all larger forum sites. Someone lashes out, gets banned, starts a new forum, tries to drag friends along, eventually realizes that running a forum is difficult, and somewhere down the line tries to come back and apologize.
I've only been at one site which
is of this size, and, thought there
is a bit more freedom of speech
in terms of frank discussion, the
topics are heavily moderated,
to prevent wandering off.
It's NEVER had anything like
this, in the couple of years that
I've been a member (except
as an April Fool's joke). The
worst that I saw, was a spat
involving some members who
were trying to run a commercial
enterprise in conjunction with the
site.
All moderation is done in the open,
and the rules are WELL understood.
Sometimes, a member does go
ballistic, all on their own, but nothing
like this. Now, I'm not suggesting that
a support site, where we all have some
problems, is likely to be trivial, but this
current situation is just ridiculous. And
if this happens regularly, it suggests that
something is really, really going wrong.
Especially given the apparent turnover of
staff here, much of it non-voluntary, AFAIK.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:50 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
Free speech is not one of our core values.
No? Certainly that was the impression
that we were given. When I joined,
there were no restraints, and when
we began modding, we were clearly
told to limit our behavior, more than
to act.
Quote:
Perhaps the capitalist in Alex is looking to become more competitive.
Indeed. Might be good enough reason to
follow his lead?
Quatermass
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:57 am Post subject:
Actually, on two previous BBSes I've been on, this stuff does occur from time to time. There's waves of it.
Quatermass
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:00 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
Of course. You remember, I said you should be clear and direct, no misunderstandings, and be prepared to follow through.
Ah, yes, my comments to JakeG and Kosmonaut that they should take up entrail reading, a subtle hint to think about the future. Maybe I should have said that I would be happy to help them by helping them read their own entrails.
Hmm, need to think about stuff. Have a thesis to work on. Enough time to do it, but have to make sure I waste little time. Who here knows SPSS well?
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:42 am Post subject:
About public vs. private warning; If I warn someone in public and they have a meltdown, then we have a public meltdown. If we're in private, they can say anything they want to me and it's going to be alright. I won't hold it against 'em. I think I need to publicize the fact that free speech is protected in PM to me up to the point of making threats. At that point, I think common sense dictates action. Everybody needs to vent sometimes, and I know how to take it and say, "Go on, tell me more." I was married for 12 years and I learned a thing or two.
Quatermass
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:48 am Post subject:
MrMark wrote:
If we're in private, they can say anything they want to me and it's going to be alright. I won't hold it against 'em. I think I need to publicize the fact that free speech is protected in PM to me up to the point of making threats. At that point, I think common sense dictates action. Everybody needs to vent sometimes, and I know how to take it and say, "Go on, tell me more."
(Underlining added by moi)
Good point. After all, we do allow links to I2 to be sent by PM. However, a loosening of attitude towards threads'd be nice too, but there ya go.
alex
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:49 am Post subject:
Quote:
Perhaps the capitalist in Alex is looking to become more competitive.
Indeed. Might be good enough reason to
follow his lead?
MrMark, I do not agree with unnecessarily limiting free speech. Only extremely bad abuse/spam problems should be dealt with by banning. I disagree with any moderators banning people for anything less.
Past mod turnover problems were the result of me mistakenly modding dishonest individuals who attempted to take advantage of the membership.
The site should serve the members, not some commercial or personal goals. I do not want to have to reiterate this again as I'm pretty sure I've already made it quite clear what does and does not fall under the purview of mods.
And I do not appreciate mods unilaterally banning members who aren't clearly spamming the site, regardless of good intentions.
Linking to other asperger's sites is allowed, unless the person is spamming the forum with those links.
Quatermass
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:49 am Post subject:
Anyway, time for me to go to bed. See ya in the morning (it's 10:50 pm here).
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:54 am Post subject:
First off, here's what we were doing:
If something was out of hand, we cut it.
That's it. No warnings, no banning.
Obviously, there could be an egregious
case, like the 8_8 poster, which showed
a mixture requiring banning.
IF that's not enough (and I think it was),
there is little point to sending a PM here
and there. The members have to be
part of the procedure.
So, lets say that there is a flame war starting.
A statement of "Let it drop guys" should be enough.
(though I found that cutting a thread to sh** worked
pretty damned well as a warning).
Ok, what about something terribly inappropriate?
Say, some hate speech? Cut the offending speech
out, with a note as to WHY the post was edited
(much like you did with the advertising - but
without trying to be cutesy).
What else could there be? The advantage is that
we show what the limits to speech are, AND they
are available for all members to observe. Not just
those receiving PMs. The PMs could still be used, as
a last resort, warning that a ban is imminent. I'd guess
they'd work about 50/50, at that point.
If it does get that far, a record should be maintained here,
about the warning, so that they don't get a chance from
each of us, as we do tend to frequent different areas, I think.
alex
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:27 am Post subject:
I have decided that links to other forum sites will no longer be prohibited.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:42 am Post subject:
To determine the core values of any organization, read the mission statement.
MrMark
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:53 am Post subject:
MrMark, I do not agree with unnecessarily limiting free speech. Only extremely bad abuse/spam problems should be dealt with by banning. I disagree with any moderators banning people for anything less.
I agree. I have not been arguing for limiting free speech. I have been arguing against the idea that free speech is protected here. I have banned 4 people, a sockpuppet and a troll. Not for speech. Not for language. For spamming and flaming. After repeated warnings. They knew they had it commin' They were lookin' for it. You know I've always been slower to ban people than you. I feel that I've been slandered by one or more persons, so I've started documenting what I do.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:01 am Post subject:
alex wrote:
Past mod turnover problems were the result of me mistakenly modding dishonest individuals who attempted to take advantage of the membership. .
Something which is truly disgusting,
and should be avoided at ALL costs.
Quote:
The site should serve the members, not some commercial or personal goals.
Beautifully stated.
Now, the questiong is HOW much protection
some members (like CheerlessLeader) deserve,
as opposed to the protection of others' right to
speak. I rather believe that we should err more
on the lines of protecting speech.
The real problem comes that some can be taunted
far too easily, and it's hard to really tell just who
is doing the bullying. The best thing to do, IMHO is
to simply put out the flames.
alex
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:39 am Post subject:
I believe that you are right about being slandered by one or more persons. I think you should try to be less defensive as people can take advantage of that.
calandale
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:27 am Post subject:
He is quite right though
that documentation of
actions is the BEST way
to prevent such misinformation.
It is very easy to come to false
conclusions, when there is no
evidence other than speculation.