Cal and Mr. Mark have a spat

[midlifeaspie]

Other possible titles.  "Intensity is 'low quality'", "What happened to DirtDawg?", "Get a room already" or "Cal talks a lot"

alex   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:33 am    Post subject: website promotion thread idea

Maybe we could create a thread for people to post links to other resources.

The no advertising rule is in place to prevent people from cluttering the forum up with threads about other websites. However, one thread would prevent the problem while still giving people the ability to post links.

Anyone have thoughts about this?


TheMachine1   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:55 am    Post subject:

Might work. But in theory people would comment about the links and trigger a flame war. So it would require alot of moderation.


calandale   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject:

I was suggesting this,
but handling it either like
the FAQ or via PMs.
That way we'd HAVE to regularly
clean up statements. Could even
link to the description which the
'advertiser' provided.


MrMark   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:28 pm    Post subject: Re: website promotion thread idea

The no advertising rule is in place to prevent people from cluttering the forum up with threads about other websites. However, one thread would prevent the problem while still giving people the ability to post links.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

If that's the way you wanna go, I don't think it should be a thread. Set a link on the homepage to a list of other sites with whom you have a reciprocal agreement. Sure, you're hardly going to get any traffic directed here from these other, tiny sites, but it's a matter of principle. And what will you do when there's a thousand other tiny sites out there wanting a reciprocal agreement? Maybe you should limit it to sites with 100 active members, or something like that. But once they have 100 active members, what do they need you for? It's just the tiny little start-ups who picked up their toys and went home because they couldn't color inside the lines, or couldn't play well with others, or have to be the alphas on the playground, and now they don't have anybody to play with but each other. I went slumming at one of those other sites and was very unimpressed. I don't think we've lost anything of value. People come and go here all the time. Most have the decency to do so with no fanfare. I gotta ask, why do you want to do any favors for people who have shown you so much disrespect? Is that the kind of behavior you want to reward and encourage? Again, it's just a matter of principle.


MrMark   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:47 pm    Post subject:

Then again, it's not just a matter of principle. What kind of message do you send people when you cave into their demands? What do you teach them about getting along in the world? I'm just flabergasted that you would even consider the demands of people who decided to do whatever the hell they wanted to on your site. When you host a party, you don't tolerate people trashin' the place, you throw 'em out and you don't invite 'em back.

About temporary bans, is there anybody here who was banned, allowed to return, and has not been banned again?

As with anything else, I don't personally care how you run your site. You're the executive manager, I'm just an operational manager. You make policy, I enforce policy. It's your site. Do what you think is best for your site.

You might consider developing a procedure manual for mods. I think everybody here would like to clearly understand what it is that you'd like them to do.


Quatermass   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject:

'A matter of principle'? I agree that a large number of the recently banned members did not contribute more to this forum but s***-stirring, but I think we have lost a few members who, with guidance, could have remained valuable members of the WP community. I also think there is a generational problem involved here in this current conflict of the mods and their methods.

I disagree with actually allowing a site link, at least with Intensity Squared and Sopho's new forums. Higher quality sites probably deserve a proper link. However, I feel that the 'lower-quality' links can be made available via PM upon request. We just have a thread like the 'mod attention' one that we invite requests, then, once we fulfill them, we delete the post.


Quatermass   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:59 pm    Post subject:

I agree on this point. That's why I started up those draft guidelines in this forum. I would like to hear your input and opinions MrMark.


calandale   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:14 pm    Post subject:

What kind of message does one want to send to
people who fear that this site is no longer a reasonably
free place, where one can speak there mind? Something
which was put heavily into members' minds by the recent
series of events.

Quote:
About temporary bans, is there anybody here who was banned, allowed to return, and has not been banned again?


I can only think of one overturned ban.
If there was a reasonable policy with
these, they would serve more as a warning,
than anything else. Let someone know that
they are crossing the line, and give them
a chance to cool down. Doing these in any
haphazard manner, in which people can protest
and be reinstated is unlikely to change their
behavior, presuming that there was anything
wrong with it, in the first place.

Quote:
As with anything else, I don't personally care how you run your site.


Funny. I rather do. Both as a member,
and as a part of the staff. You almost
sound as though you're being paid, the
way you express yourself, and such
mercenary ideals really sicken me.
One does have to have principles in
their life.


TheMachine1   
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:17 pm    Post subject:

That is a good point about reciprocal links MrMark. Also since Soph(s) site is mostly a splinter of WP there is no real reciprocal link value so it would only be provided because Alex wanted to do it not because it was anyway mutual beneficial to both sites.

I know I2 has alot of WP memebers to and before that neurolands. Did the neurolands members mostly come from WP. Point being most links will be one way. I guess the notion of true reciprocal link would not be the case so there would be no real reason to labour the point to other sites to list WP.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:32 am    Post subject:

People need to be free to come and go as they please, and to take responsiblity for their choices. It's good for them to get out there and see what else there is. They can always come back if they haven't burned their bridges. This is the best site of it's kind on the web. This is where people want to be, and if people, like DirtDawg, feel like they find a better fit elsewhere, that's great. I wanted to promote I2 as the alternative to WP, but alex wouldn't have it.


(Only 7 more hours til I have to go back to work at my other job, the one that allows me to be here doing this, among other things. Not that I have time for other things.)


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:34 am    Post subject:

Threads should be edited when:
 …
 …
 …
Threads should be deleted when:
 …
 …
 …

Threads should be moved when:
 …
 …
 …

Threads should be locked when:
 …
 …
 …

Threads should be split when:
 …
 …
 …

Members should be warned when:
 …
 …
 …

Members should be banned when:
 …
 …
 …

Appeals procedure
 …

General guidelines
 …

Special cases
 …

Emergencies
 …
Fill in the blanks. Any uniform guideline will do.


Quatermass   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject

In the right thread, MrMark, please?

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=38787


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:37 am    Post subject:

Who is it that's afraid to speak their mind. We'll add them to QMs list of people afraid to PM me. I'm not seeing the evidence to support these claims.


TheMachine1   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:43 am    Post subject:

Should include [pre-written] examples that will be used in the most common siutations.
Also I think they should be made publicly and not address to any one in particular or sent in PM.

Like: Refrain from attacking other members or such posts will be removed.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:48 am    Post subject:

I did not ask for this job. Alex asked me to do it. The first thing I did was ask, "Where's the manual?" There's no shortage of people who are convinced that they know how to do this. I think many of them project their own sense of centainty onto me. So do you think I should do this job the way I think I should do it, and not the way Alex thinks I should do it? I don't personally care how he runs his site. I not attached. I don't care, but I don't not care either. This is a learning experience for Alex too. He asked me to help him.


Quatermass   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:02 am    Post subject:

Hey, I did not ask for the job either. In fact, when Flagg said I should be a mod, I refused because I was afraid of abusing that power. But I got made a mod, and I have been trying to do the best job I can do. I am not convinced I know how to do this. Haven't you noticed that I usually defer the decision to other mods to ban someone other than an obvious incarnation of the Drooling Megalomaniac (aka Atomika)?

But....

I still try to intervene and talk down people when they're in meltdown. I try to keep things civil. I try to make sure Wrong Planet is still safe for the members.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:02 am    Post subject:

You see, I don't know anything about this sh**. Global Moderators existed for weeks or months before I stumbled upon it. It doesn't headline on the homepage, I don't get an e-mail. I've spoken time and again about how overwhelming this is. I've got people on one side of me complaining that I do too much and people on the other side of me complaining that I do too little and a handful of PMs from people gushing on about what a wonderful job I do. This is why I've started documenting my activities. When Alex asked me to do this he was having anxiety attacks. He was receiving death threats, and there was nothing wrong with the way he was doing this. I think he needed relief and I provided it for him. People just dump so much sh** onto the authority figures in their lives for doing what they're supposed to do. I would never be a cop. Don't want to work with the people I would have to work with, you know the "bad guys." They rub off on you. I feel like the ugly people I've had to throw out of here have rubbed off on me. I... 


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:04 am    Post subject:

Interesting point here.
What IS DirtDawg's case?
He claims that he was banned recently,
yet that he hasn't posted here in forever.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:07 am    Post subject:

Oh, you read this incorrectly, though this list
sounds like some kind of scary internal police
thing.   

No, they are afraid of what is becoming of the site,
and are sometimes QUITE vocal about it. In some
cases, it seems, to the point of arranging to get
themselves banned over it.

While there are perhaps people genuinely afraid
(for whatever reason), I can't imagine that they'd
let a member of the staff know such fears. Especially
someone liable to expose their name.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:10 am    Post subject:

I'll probably never change my personal opinion on this. Warnings should be private. You don't reprimand your employees in front of the other staff. Same principle applies. There is a down side. You know about the few people who threw temper tantrums becuase I sent 'em warnings. You don't know about the vast majority who respond very positively to my style. There's so much that I do that nobody sees, quietly, gently, behind the scenes. You just hear from the noise makers. And the people who are lookin' for a mod they feel like they can influence.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:13 am    Post subject:

Where's the manual?   
Yeah, that sounds familiar.

And you're right, people who KNOW how
to run the site are quite likely the worst
choices.

Quote:
So do you think I should do this job the way I think I should do it, and not the way Alex thinks I should do it? I don't personally care how he runs his site. I not attached. I don't care, but I don't not care either. This is a learning experience for Alex too. He asked me to help him.


Of course not. But, you should fight towards
the view which is in accord with your impressions.
Not just act on them, and leave us in the dark.
Though, I'm not convinced that the recent actions
are even yours.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:16 am    Post subject:

I have no information. He may have been bragging. I don't believe he was banned.


Quatermass   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:19 am    Post subject:

Regarding the GM forum and my thread: Sorry, it's just that I wanted input.

About sh** jobs and authority figures: How many people actually complain that you do too little? I mean besides Cheerlessleader and Unknown? People dump so much sh** on authority figures because of a number of reasons, like who's watching the watchmen, mistakes are more visible, abuse of authority, etc, etc.... Here in Australia, we have more of a healthy distrust of authority. Well, more of a scepticism, really. But for an authority figure, the best thing to cultivate is trust. You can't please everyone, but you should try to please as many as possible, and piss off as little an amount as possible.

Moderating's a mug's game. It's more like s***-shovelling than being a cop. But someone has to do it. And as for being a cop, well, my worries are more to do with my necrophobia than mixing with criminals.

If you feel they have rubbed off on you, try some carbolic soap.   

Regarding Alex and death threats: We're talking actual phoned-in stuff, not just ranting on the BBS?   Damn, that's scary. Is it any wonder why I'm private on these forums?


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:19 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
...and a handful of PMs from people gushing on about what a wonderful job I do.


In general, I find it best to thank these types,
and forget them. Keeps one from thinking wrongly.

Quote:
People just dump so much sh** onto the authority figures in their lives for doing what they're supposed to do.


Usually well deserved.
Not because they should
be perfect, but because we
DO all make mistakes, and
complaints are one way
to learn.

Quote:
I would never be a cop. Don't want to work with the people I would have to work with, you know the "bad guys." They rub off on you. I feel like the ugly people I've had to throw out of here have rubbed off on me. I... 


Hmm...why do I feel that you and I
would view the "bad guys" differently?
I would hate to be a cop, because my
co-workers would all seem to be the
type who get off on power trips. Ah,
I've known a couple of decent cops,
but overall, they tend to remind me
of just the type that I've been opposed
to, my whole life.

No, the "ugly people" were rather in favor
of free speech. I don't see any sign of that
having rubbed off on you yet.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:22 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
While there are perhaps people genuinely afraid
(for whatever reason), I can't imagine that they'd
let a member of the staff know such fears. Especially
someone liable to expose their name.

Well, I'd prefer that we not speculate. I'd prefer that we make decisions based on evidence. I'm documenting my activities to reduce the speculation about my activities. Seems everyone gets the benefit of the doubt but me.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:28 am    Post subject:

Quote:
So do you think I should do this job the way I think I should do it, and not the way Alex thinks I should do it? I don't personally care how he runs his site. I not attached. I don't care, but I don't not care either. This is a learning experience for Alex too. He asked me to help him.


Of course not. But, you should fight towards
the view which is in accord with your impressions.
Not just act on them, and leave us in the dark.
...

I'm not sure I'm followin' you there. Sounds like maybe you're talking about colaboration. Not one of my strengths. I follow, or I lead. I seek to be second in command.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:38 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
I'll probably never change my personal opinion on this. Warnings should be private. You don't reprimand your employees in front of the other staff. Same principle applies.


Warnings should NOT be reprimands.
Bannings are.
If you see them as such, it might just
be WHY there was a problem.

Quote:
There is a down side. You know about the few people who threw temper tantrums becuase I sent 'em warnings.


I remember when you sent me one,
months ago, on the one thread that
you paid attention to. Given that it
was only that single thread you were
infecting, I complied, though my initial
reaction was one leaning towards asking
you what the f**k kind of censorship you
were trying to impose.

Quote:
You don't know about the vast majority who respond very positively to my style. There's so much that I do that nobody sees, quietly, gently, behind the scenes. You just hear from the noise makers. And the people who are lookin' for a mod they feel like they can influence.


Indeed. Ignorance and fear.
No question. Veiled threats in
private are generally effective,
no f***ing question about it.

That's how all good totalitarian
societies are run. THAT is NOT
my vision of what this site should
be. When the members have our
actions exposed to them, they can
comment on whether the actions
were wrongful. When we are on
individual little secret police trips,
they don't even see what is happening.
People just vanish. And you wonder why
there were people leaving?


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:39 am    Post subject:

Quatermass wrote:
People dump so much sh** on authority figures because of a number of reasons, like who's watching the watchmen, mistakes are more visible, abuse of authority, etc, etc....

No, people dump sh** on authority figures because of there own issues with authority figures. It has nothing to do with the authority figures themselves. The ugly people I threw outta here showed disrespect for authority, not distrust. In fact, they knew they could trust me to throw them out. I know what I'm talking about because I used to be just like all the little shits on this site. The depression, the whining, the anger, the blaming, all of it. I grew out of it. In order to do that I had to understand why I behaved like that.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:42 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
I'm not sure I'm followin' you there. Sounds like maybe you're talking about colaboration. Not one of my strengths. I follow, or I lead. I seek to be second in command.


Exactly what I'm talking about. I rather
suspect that you DON'T lead, but rather
tyrannize. One leads, within a collaborative
atmosphere. Hiding one's own actions is NOT
a good leadership tactic. It breeds contempt.

I had presumed that the information which was
not shared was a matter of laziness, rather than
willfully keeping the staff in the dark.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:47 am    Post subject:

Quatermass wrote:
How many people actually complain that you do too little?

I'm thinking of the month of May. No one saw me, so they assumed that I wasn't here. Outta sight, outta mind. Infant mentality. Grael' laid into me for not being there, like I was supposed to psychically be aware of her needs. But it's okay. When those injured people are laying into me, they're not takin' it out on more vunerable members. I can take it and ask for more, (really. "Go on." "Tell me more." "Is there more?") because I understand. I never feel a need to hit back. Not anymore.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:50 am    Post subject:

Quatermass wrote:
Regarding Alex and death threats: We're talking actual phoned-in stuff, not just ranting on the BBS?   Damn, that's scary. Is it any wonder why I'm private on these forums?

I don't remember the details, just that he was pretty upset, and a little scared.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:53 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
Hmm...why do I feel that you and I
would view the "bad guys" differently?
I would hate to be a cop, because my
co-workers would all seem to be the
type who get off on power trips. Ah,
I've known a couple of decent cops,
but overall, they tend to remind me
of just the type that I've been opposed
to, my whole life.


Yeah, well, cops and politicians all start out as good guys.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:57 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
Yeah, well, cops and politicians all start out as good guys.


You talkin' about them being born
unknowing, or that their intentions
are good? For the latter, I've seen,
is usually entirely incorrect. Most cops
get into it for the power, just like politicians.

The motivation of those who actually
desire power is truly disturbing.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:57 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
No, the "ugly people" were rather in favor
of free speech. I don't see any sign of that
having rubbed off on you yet.

I'm all for free speech.
I'm also for private property rights.
This is private property.

And if we're lucky, you'll never see any sign of them rubbing off on me.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:02 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
I'm also for private property rights.
This is private property.


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.

AND, if the perception is that we are
censoring speech needlessly. That we
are acting capriciously at all, we are
doomed, as well.

Quote:
And if we're lucky, you'll never see any sign of them rubbing off on me.


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.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:03 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
Warnings should NOT be reprimands.
Bannings are.
If you see them as such, it might just
be WHY there was a problem.


Semantics. The point is people need to be able to save face. It's not a reprimand, it's a correction, guidence. I specified, "Same principle applies." And there's more...


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:12 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
Indeed. Ignorance and fear.
No question. Veiled threats in
private are generally effective,
no f***ing question about it.


You're speculating again. I have never, ever made a veiled threat. On two occasions I have said "If... then I will ban you." I have admonished QM for making a "veiled" threat. We're dealing with aspies here. It's very important to be very clear and very direct. I tend to resent your inference. You'll have to forgive me, I'm still responding to posts back on page 2. I like to think about what I have to say. Oop! You see, they rubbed off on me. 


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:22 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
That's how all good totalitarian
societies are run. THAT is NOT
my vision of what this site should
be. When the members have our
actions exposed to them, they can
comment on whether the actions
were wrongful. When we are on
individual little secret police trips,
they don't even see what is happening.
People just vanish. And you wonder why
there were people leaving?

I don't think the totalitarian society is a very good analogy, but nevertheless, you may have a point. I have begun documenting my activities. I hope to demonstrate a direct relationship between my activities and the input of the membership.

I suggested more power/authority to, input from the membership to Alex months ago. He refused, citing disasterous results in the past. Cliques form, due to open administration. It tears at the fabric of the forum. "Never again, " I think he said. I did not press the issue. It's his site. Personally, I love grassroots rule, but I don't personally care how Alex runs his site.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:26 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
I rather
suspect that you DON'T lead, but rather
tyrannize.

In this case, your suspicions are are ungrounded. I suggest you look for the reason for your suspicions inside yourself and not outside. They're you're suspicions.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:37 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
I had presumed that the information which was
not shared was a matter of laziness, rather than
willfully keeping the staff in the dark.

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 guess I was wrong. I explain my AS to NTs and they get me. Aspies don't get me. Maybe the cynics are right and most of the people on this site are wannabes. Ah, you see, more rubbin' off. I was so much more optimistic about people, downright naïve, before I started dealin' with all this sh**.

Everybody gets the benefit of the doubt but me.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:43 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
You're speculating again. I have never, ever made a veiled threat.

Perhaps you don't see them that way, but
when I received a PM from you stating something
along the lines of, "you should reconsider..."
and a link to one of my posts, that is EXACTLY
what I viewed it as. Much like when the teacher
knows who did the wrong, but has everyone close
their eyes so that it can be rectified.

Again, I don't know what your feelings were, at that
post. I thought that it might have been a matter of some special
respect being accorded to a mod, but I'm a lot less
certain now. At that time, we were not interfering with
one anothers' duties, and there seemed a consensus that
we would only touch the most egregious topics. I presumed
that you were saying, "hey, I'm not going to delete your posts,
BUT maybe you shouldn't even be a mod here, IF that's the
kind of stuff that you are going to be posting." Now, I rather
wonder if that's the style that you've taken with others.

If so, I can indeed see why it would piss someone off.
A lot.

If something is so harmful that it requires our
activity, we should step in and do it. And perhaps
note what we have done, and why.

This way, others DON'T make the same mistakes,
and our actions are available for criticism. Whether
warnings are reasonable, well it would seem that anyone
without friends involved in the incident should be able
to do so. I rather suspect that we're more likely to come
down harsher on those we like, than otherwise, anyhow.
I know that is my tendency, but it may have to do with
what I find attractive in a person, more than the connection
itself.

Quote:
On two occasions I have said "If... then I will ban you."


I see NO problem with this.
For example, telling someone like
Sopho are Starbuline, in the midst
of their spamming, would not be terrible.
It might not help, but is worth a try.
There might be a more politic first step,
such as asking them not to spam, but
I would suspect that nothing would have
prevented that, AT that late point.

Quote:
We're dealing with aspies here. It's very important to be very clear and very direct.


Indeed. And I'm wondering if it's simply a
matter of a poor way of expressing these
warnings, rather than any intention. All
the more reason they should be public,
as members of the community would call
us to task, for seeming to say something
which we aren't.

That's Alex's decision, but I think that it's
something he should reconsider.
Quote:

I tend to resent your inference. You'll have to forgive me,


I can understand that, if we are
misunderstanding one another.
I too ask forgiveness, in that case.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:43 am    Post subject:

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.


MrMark   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:46 am    Post subject:

calandale wrote:
The motivation of those who actually
desire power is truly disturbing.

I agree, almost completely. I'm not disturbed, I understand. Been there, done that, seen the short-term pay-off.


calandale   
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:47 am    Post subject:

MrMark wrote:
I suggested more power/authority to, input from the membership to Alex months ago. He refused, citing disasterous results in the past. Cliques form, due to open administration. It tears at the fabric of the forum. "Never again, " I think he said. I did not press the issue. It's his site. Personally, I love grassroots rule, but I don't personally care how Alex runs his site.


There's a big difference between
choosing the staff by popularity,
and exposing our decisions.

I think that the latter is an
excellent way to show that
we are TRYING to do our
best.

And I AM pressing the issue, because
that seems to be exactly what would
have prevented this occurrence. Yes,
it means some people wouldn't have the
fortitude to be mods. I think most of us
could handle a bit of criticism though.

[midlifeaspie]

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.