Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
crazyfingers said:First, there is no way to know that. Second, if such a consensus exists, it is not communicated to the users overall, only to the user in question and in private. Third, there remains no way to know if a consensus in one case is consistent with a consensus in another case. There remains no way to know if a prevailing interpretation of a rule exists and if it does, what it is.
Understand what you say? Not hard.
To accept that a prevailing interpretation of a rule is communicated to the users overall and to accept that it is applied uniformity? No. I know of know reason to accept that because I know of no mechanism by which such a prevailing interpretation of the rule would be communicated to the users overall or any mechanism which would cause a prevailing interpretation to exist, without transparency.
I am not sure what you are talking about. While I have not read all posts in this topic, most of what I have seen has been fluff or off-topic. I doubt that Erwin would have started this topic if he didn't expect on-topic comments. As it is, I think that the comments in his OP were quite good.
But, I was responding to your post, not the OP.
Moderation in describing the problem? No. I don't think that there is any particular need to whitewash the problem that exists. I think that the problem is clear. There is largely no mechanism to communicate prevailing practice to the users and there appears to be no mechanism to ensure that there is a prevailing practice at all. Accountability and opacity are not generally compatible.
Erwin said:I plan on making some radical changes to CF moderation and the appeals process.
I am still discussing this with some people and senior staff.
These changes will please some and upset others. However, I anticipate that the changes will overall address the issues of , transparency and clarity being raised by some members. It will involve a rethink of how the whole system works really.
These changes will not happen overnight, and will take time to implement.
I thank you for your patience. We are not perfect and we have our internal issues, and I apologise for this. There is plenty of room for improvement and I am aware of this.
Bear with me as I find out the best way to do this.
I'ddie4him said:So you think that accountability for the members is wrong ??
As for moderation, I was referring to the extent of the demands that have been made. Erwin has the right to do with CF as he wishes. I will not dispute that. I can't.
But, A certain amount of diplomacy has to be exercised also when wanting some changes. Erwin is right to be upset about this. Pushing the buck to far is not going to net anything. Right ??
crazyfingers said:Um... No. Please explain how you came to that conclusion based on my comments.
crazyfingers said:What I have suggested is that there is little that would impose accountability upon the staff without some transparency in terms of communicating a prevailing practice to the uses and making sure that one exists at all.
crazyfingers said:Have I suggested that Erwin doesn't have the right to dictate policy? I don't think so.
crazyfingers said:I'm just one user on CF. An atheist. I highly doubt that what I alone say will have much if any influence on what Erwin decides to do. I strongly suspect that Erwin is hearing from a multitude of sources. Unless of course, you think that what I have to say is beyond dispute?
crazyfingers said:In any case, I realize that change usually doesn't happen overnight. Recall however that this all started when you claimed that warnings are based on facts. That claim was not correct. Warnings are based on interpretations of the rules. Until CF has a way of communicating a consistent set of interpretations of the rules to users, and until it has some checks and balances to ensure that there is a mechanism to cause there to be a prevailing interpretation of the rules, by whatever method, the problems that Erwin described will continue.
debiwebi said:You must want to get this thread shut down for all the rest of the members of the board that want to ability to state their opinions as well here I see because it is more important to some of you to be right .......
In debative fashion IMHO of courseI'ddie4him said:Who's debating ?? We are simply expressing our opinions about matters.
debiwebi said:.... This does not mean that jumping all over already taxed Mods and Admins is going to make this process go any faster ...
debiwebi said:.... Every situation is not a standard sitaution and therefore if you try to standardize the sitautions then you also get yourself into bigger problems down the line too...
debiwebi said:In debative fashion
This point I would like to say I agree with .... but I also agree with I'ddie4himWhat I have suggested is that there is little that would impose accountability upon the staff without some transparency in terms of communicating a prevailing practice to the uses and making sure that one exists at all.
debiwebi said:This point I would like to say I agree with .... but I also agree with I'ddie4him
There needs to be accountabilty on both sides and it needs to fairly distributed
IOWs you have both made some very good points and both need to be examined and looked at ....IMHO
You are quite Welcome and thank you for being as humble as you are right now ....I'ddie4him said:Thank you for that kind comment debi. I think Erwin is wise to try to institute changes. Accountability and consistency are needed. But, This is a slow process. It will be a slow process. With that, I am done.
debiwebi said:You are quite Welcome and thank you for being as humble as you are right now ....
I realize that in a way what I just did may come across as trying to moderate between both of you.... But I am also trying to make sure we all have our say and no one gets into trouble in the wayside .... You took that with much Grace .... That is much appreciated as I am not a mod and you did not have to listen to me at all ....
I'ddie4him said:I asked about it and the point was glossed over and forgetton.
Accountability is fine for the staff, But, it also has to be in place for the members as well. Otherwise CF would be a free for all.
Where did I assert that you did ??
Never said that either.
Warnings are based on fact. The fact that a member violated the rules.
While a consistent interpretation of the rules is needed, Something I won't deny,
Enforcement of rules is necessary for anything be it real society or a website. That cannot be denied. People cannot do whatever they want to with no fear of reprisals. If I were to seriously injure another, Should I be allowed to go free and not be punished according to the set rules ?? I think not. I would expect to be punished as the rules are set forth. If a mandatory term of confinement is called for, Who am I to expect preferential treatment ?? Anyone else for that matter ?? Fair is Fair.
I'ddie4him,I'ddie4him said:Not a problem.I may be quite strong in my opinions and such at times, And I do need to exercise some restraint. Doesn't change what I feel, Just means that we can't always be right all the time.
Miss Shelby said:...a vocal minority of sqeaky wheels ...
In the US, a vocal minority of squeaky wheels got some great (if incomplete) changes for civil rights. Yay, squeaky wheels!Rochir said:I, and many others, are glad to be on a board where injustices can still be talked about and finally are not simply pushed under a rug! Personally, I find your characterisation of us quite uncalled for!
starchild said:In the US, a vocal minority of squeaky wheels got some great (if incomplete) changes for civil rights. Yay, squeaky wheels!
You have developed a penchant, both here and on another board, of taking things that I say out of context. I said in my comment that you quoted that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing.Rochir said:I, and many others, are glad to be on a board where injustices can still be talked about and finally are not simply pushed under a rug! Personally, I find your characterisation of us quite uncalled for!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?