Change to the Appeals process, changes to Staff and a few other things

[Tonks]

.


1. So, there ARE still FSG - at least for the Congregational forums. I suspect there still will be for the Debate forum in Theology and a couple of others...

No. It is more of a "purpose" for the forum...in terms of the Congregationals it is more of "this is what we believe and teach." A few overarching points and then links to official documents etc. The Lutherans, for example, a few remarks about x, y, z and then links to the Book of Concord, Luther's Catechism or whatever. I'm not Lutheran so I'm not making that call...other than trying to make sure that things are standardized. They're to be informational...not rules.

2. This wording is EXCELLENT and historic for CF. It would (and for years did) work well IF it is applied according to the wording. I'm certain the "troubles" I've had in OBOB would have been avoided if this had been the FSG there. Of course, some of the problem for Staff comes in the word "debate." Staff has tended of late to interpret such as any statement not in full compliance with the current interpretation of the current Catholic Catechism whereas, IMHO, "debate" means to give a counter argument with the purpose of persuasion and/or conversion. Especially difficult has been the FSG disallowing a noncatholic from "teaching" since, of course, merely posting one's name means a rule violation if Staff so desires to rule: It was decided recently, for example, that merely corrrecting a FACTUAL mistatement about Protestants that is NOT held or taught by the CC was a rule violation against teaching AND also debating since, while facturally correct and not in any sense at varience with the Catholic faith or Catechism, was nonetheless a teaching - even if factually correct and helpful, and debative even though there was obviously no desire to change anyone's opinion/view/faith/doctrine about anything - simply to correct an objective, factual error.

I think that you're misreading the intent (and I'm not sure it would help you to have avoided your "troubles" as you call them). "Fact checking" belongs in the Theology sections. Do I think that staff is too quick to pull the trigger on "non-fellowship / debate" posts? At times. Then again...I think that people are - at times - quick to pull the "aggrieved member routine" when they try to "correct." To be perfectly honest, since you brought it up, your posts tend too far towards the "strident / aggressive" line when you feel the need to "correct" false impressions. It gets tiresome

Staff needs to drop the "teach" rule and find a better word than "debate" but otherwise, the historic position of CF is a good one. The FSG of ONE faith community forum should be no different than all the others. BTW, you do know that the Lutheran forums DOES allow - even encourages - debate (as I was once a mod there). It permits disagreement, teaching, correcting. Always has. At least from my limited (and how ancient history) experience, the issue was almost entirely over ONE faith community - the others were all much less "protective." Perhaps that's changed.

In my somewhat broader perspective...you tended to focus exclusively on "one faith community." To be perfectly frank - as I hinted at in your other thread - you are the only person that keeps bringing this up repeatedly. The only one. I suggest you learn a new tune or something. We can't force forums to be more welcoming...our focus is ensuring that the rule applications are more consistent.

This, IMHO, is much more problematic than the current position. First of all, some faith forums DO allow teaching and debating. Secondly, what does it mean to "debate?" This has been interpreted rather creatively of late. Thirdly, "teach AGAINST" is a VAST improvement over the current rule in OBOB against "teaching" period. But, again, if a Catholic posted: "Luther was born in England" in OBOB and a Lutheran posted, "Actually, he was born in what is today Germany" that would be a rule violation (I KNOW) and result in an infraction because it's teaching. But, is the "teaching AGAINST" mean teaching AGAINST the denomination's official doctrines or teaching against a poster who is associated with that denomination? And does "against" mean to disagree or does it have some stronger meaning? What if one says, "this is how I see it...." and what follows is not the exact verbatim wording of the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism, would that be "against" or would it be an expression of faith?

Frankly, I think the orginal wording is much clearer and better. This wording leaves things very fuzzy and open to a wide range of possible interpretations.

Your "concerns" about OBOB are noted. I only wish you were as concerned about other forums on the site as you are about a denominational forum whose dogmas you don't share.

1. KISS. Posters should not be expected to read 50 pages of legalize, click on a link in it to another page of such then on a link there for another page of such to find what Staff is using as a basis for a violation. Make it one sentence. Use terms generally understood (for example, "debate" generally means to present an opposing position, a counter arguement, with the purpose of converting the person; it does not mean to disagree or present another view).

We're slimming it down. However, based on the number of users reported and actioned vice the number of users that actually use the site on a daily basis I'd suggest, politely, that the problem is not with the specific wording as they appear to be crystal clear to 95% of the members.

2. Drop the "teach" word. We at CF should WELCOME learning - not make it a rule violation. Many of us come here to learn and we WANT people to teach us.

I don't necessarily want to learn from you in TAW, which I think is the point. As such, I'm not entirely thrilled by this suggestion. The problem is that you feel, apparently, that you should be able to "teach" everywhere and that people want to "learn." I'm not entirely sure that is always the case.

3. Drop all mention of "proselytizing." This implies INTENT. How in the world can Staff possibly know the INTENT of a poster? ALL STAFF KNOWS IS THE WORDS ON THE PAGE. IT IS CALL STAFF CAN KNOW!!! Staff should not presume to know what a poster INTENDS - nor should they be asked to "read" someone's heart rather than the words. Now, certainly, Staff can ASK (something Staff almost never does) but unless it specifically ASKS the poster what he/she MEANT or INTENDED, then Staff should not assume to "know" to the extent of basis an infaction on such (now unappealable - so if Staff is wrong, they'll never know and the injustice will be permentant). Look, a poster may share his heart. I MAY be swayed by that. Does that mean the poster's DESIRE was to take me away from Lutheranism and convert me? Not necessarily..... IMHO, this is just one example of SLOPPY guidelines just begging for misuse and injustice and offense by Staff that is simply trying to do their job IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES (ie, it's the RULES fault, not the Staff). Give the posters and the Staff CLEAR, universal, short and simple rules - and ask Staff to arbitrate on the basis of what was posted, not what Staff is guessing might be "implied" or "intended" (unless Staff specifically asks the poster). 4. To be honest, I've never been a huge fan of "safe havens" in an ecumenical, interdenominational website whose purpose is to bring us together, to honestly and openly discuss our faith and the issues that unite and divide us. IMHO, Lutherans whose desire is to fellowship exclusively with other Lutherans and to not have Lutheranism in any sense disagreed with should go to one of the dozens of Lutheran websites that exist for that purpose. But, the decision was made to have these congregational sites and I am not opposed to them (and I post in mine). But I think a decision needs to be made. IF a "wall of separation" (as the OBOB Catholic staffers referred to it) is needed around one or more of the congregation forums, then it might make sense to simply bar non-Catholics from posting there. You know, I was very active in the Catholic Church for some 5 years, studied all that time under 3 Catholic teachers - and I never experience ANY "violations" by asking questions, sharing my views, etc. But such is obviously and intensively a problem here at CF. So, maybe the best approach is to simply make it a Catholic forum. OR realize that IN AN ECUMENICAL, INTERDENOMINATIONAL Website, one might find Christians that do not absolutely agree with every one of the 2,865 paragraphs of the latest edition of the Catholic Catechism in accord with the current interpretation and application of the Magisterium of our time and that what is needed is not a "wall of separation" or "safe haven" but RESPECT. I don't go to a Baptist church with the goal of converting them to Lutheranism - I AM A GUEST in THEIR church, and I ALWAYS go to the Congregational forums here at CF with that heart (my theology permits such, of course, it's a bit more problematic for some others). I think, since the inception of these Congregational Forums, CF has TRIED to do the later - but new fsg keep getting added primarily for the sake of one of the congregational forums, Staff keeps changing how it "enforces" those fsg, it gets to where in essense it IS closed - then we start all over again. Either just close them OR realize that disagreement is not the same as hate or debate or proselytizing. The Lutheran forum has ALWAYS allowed debate, disagreement, questions, teachings - and yet I think it "works" as a congregational forum (LOL, as a former mod there, the "problems" there have been Lutherans discussing with Lutherans - NOT nonlutherans debating or teaching or disagreeing or proselyting). Several of the forums have this tradition, perhaps it IS workable in all of them.

I'm tired of this continual discussion of OBOB. Find some way to rewrite this so it applies globally and not specifically. I'm sure that you have otehr examples.

5. An option I've been suggesting for nearly 4 years is for the congregational forums THAT FEEL THE NEED FOR IT to be allowed to have a "closed" section. The main forum would be open to all - with no flaming allowed and not as a debate forum. An Anglican would be allowed to post, "this is how Anglicans see that...." etc. A Baptist would be allowed to quote a Scripture and ask, "but what about this verse?" But those Catholics who feel the need for a "wall of separation from Protestants" and who desire to not know what the other half of Christianity thinks/feels/believes on a topic, may post in the "closed" section. There would be no "fsg" OF ANY NATURE in the open one, none needed in the closed since it would be understoood that unless one's faith icon is for that group, they are not permitted. Pretty simple.

Well...I guess if has been suggested for 4 years and rejected for 4 years that is somewhat indicative of how the suggestion is received. And you really can't blame it me "being in charge" because a ton of people have been in charge and have also rejected the idea. Persistence of an idea or simply because it is "yours" does not make it a good idea.

6. Stop changing things. Please. When I was on staff, I sent an absurd amount of time just trying to keep up with all the constant changes in rules, protocol, etc., etc., etc., etc. If Staff can't keep up with it all, how do you expect posters to? I've never been a part of any website with more rules, more laws, more guidelines - very finely tuned and interpreted in widely diverse ways - constantly changing. I realize that's your job and it is the view of all of us that what we NOW have is broke, but I really hope the goal is to come up with something SIMPLY and SHORT that fits with the goal of bringing together all Christians in followship and discussion. Friend, SOME (a tiny percentage, IMHO) want what CF was never intended to be. And, IMHO, the moves to change CF are part of what is causing it to so quickly faulter and decline. Let us fellowship. Let us talk. AS CHRISTIANS. Respectfully agreeing and disagreeing and HOPEFULLY growing and learning because of each other. Otherwise, there's no reason to be here. Other sites are much better in the alternatives.

Then go to the other sites, I guess. We have a new owner, a new vision, and we're attempting to direct the site towards how the guy that pays the bills would like. Or...go out and post something other than OBOB gripes. It is a big site. I'd be much more sympathetic (probably) to what you're saying if you didn't have such a laser-like focus on OBOB. You say that you've made suggestions for 4 years. Got it. However, for 4 years all I've heard are constant complaints about OBOB. The view depends on where you sit and YMMV.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

quote Tonks:*snip*
....I think that you're misreading the intent (and I'm not sure it would help you to have avoided your "troubles" as you call them). "Fact checking" belongs in the Theology sections. Do I think that staff is too quick to pull the trigger on "non-fellowship / debate" posts? At times. Then again...I think that people are - at times - quick to pull the "aggrieved member routine" when they try to "correct." To be perfectly honest, since you brought it up, your posts tend too far towards the "strident / aggressive" line when you feel the need to "correct" false impressions. It gets tiresome.......

Greeting Tonks. I believe that is unfair to be picking out a certain poster like that on this thread.
What is your opinion may not be the opinions of others......I suppose this is one reason I will probably post less and less on CF strictly because too much is taken "personally".
I would have thought you were better than that. Just my own humble opinion. God bless

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think a return to the "semi" open report threads is a good idea.

the cloak and dagger version we have now, in conjunction with the "you can't argue if we infract you" is a worrisome mix.

so basically, you can get reported, staff can decide to do whatever they wish, without anyone to tell them otherwise (and make up new "custom" punisments as well) and dish you out penal actions that you can't 1) disagree with 2) defend against 3) discuss whatsoever, because that is ANOTHER rule violation 4)take to the reconciliation team and expect any REAL action (because to date, RT has been more about supporting the staff, than it is anything else) 5) expect any relief from, as staff use these unappealable infractions as basis for further action against you if reported again.

Given the fact that the staff actions are already horribly inconsistant (with some people getting hammered, and others getting off scott free) you're going to see some people get the bums rush right out of CF, while others who's posts I wouldn't want to step in.... are still around.

I do not see this helping CF in any way. and yes, I suppose we have to do what the owner wants for his "vision" but I suggest the owner get some bifocals... his vision is going to run CF right in to the ground, IM(ns)HO.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


On bans and appeals.....


1. I have a HUGE respect for Staffers. I KNOW (totally, from experience) that the overwhelming majority of these volunteers (let's not forget that part!) are doing their very best to be fair, evangelical, unbiased and helpful - not only to CF and it's goals, but to the poster. I KNOW that. I've been on all sides of that. They are required to act in accord with the rules and protocols of CF - and I think therein lies some difficulties.


2. Staff are fallible, as are all posters. And they ONLY thing Staff has to go by are black letters on their monitor creating words. They CANNOT know the heart or intent or implications of the poster (unless they specifically ASK the poster - which almost never happens). As a former staff and supervisor of such, I can tell you - it's not as easy as it sounds.


3. While all staff SEEK to be fair and balanced and unbiased, such is never totally possible. We use to try to keep staff balanced in terms of their views and to encourage as large a number of staff to work each Report in order to TRY to keep things as fair and balanced as possible. But even then, "mistakes" got made. UNINTENTIONALLY, I can assure you, but it happened. I'm pretty sure it still does. Staff may not respect a poster, they may disagree with the post, they may feel sure something was "implied" even though they realize it's not actually there. Perhaps the context of the post was not taken fully into account. Assumptions were made. Hey, they're only human - as are we all!!!!! And NO ONE wants it this way. Staff take their ministry seriously and WANT to be fair and just and helpful to all. I'm certain of that.


4. Unaccountability is never a good thing. In Reports, the "check" on the system is the appeal. Typically, this is the FIRST and ONLY opportunity the poster has to express his "side" (the "trial" is held in his absence and often without his knowledge). This is the opportunity for Staff to learn what was meant or implied, and the first opportunity for Staff to teach and counsel the poster (which, IMHO, should be the primary function of Staff - counselors, not police). This is where the "check" happens. Where it becomes possible for Staff to learn they simply misjudged the situation (if, indeed, they did). Without an appeal, injustice is locked in and made incorrectable. I honestly don't think this is what Staff WANTS.


5. IMHO, a "warning" ("counsel" would be a better term) that does NOT count toward a ban might be unappealable BUT there still should be some opportunity for the poster to reply. That's how learning takes makes. Without such, the Staff action itself is of very limited value.


6, IF the Staff action can result in a ban (say if a certain number of actions is attained within a certain period), then IMHO they MUST be appealable. They should be unappealable ONLY if Staff is convinced that Staff CANNOT make mistakes or ever be wrong. And if Staff honestly believes that, friends, we have a problem...


7. Appeals are EXCELLENT learning tools for everyone. The poster learns (since he's out of the loop in the actual Staff deliberation). HERE is where he/she learns how to post and what he/she did that was regraded as unproductive or unwise. Even more, it's an opportunity for STAFF to learn. There needs to be practice discusssions of the Rules and the APPROPRIATE and consistent application of such. Staff should WELCOME the opportunity to learn how better to do their ministry. I think they do.


Making official Staff actions that can lead to bans unappealable, IMHO, limits learning for both posters and Staff, is fundamentally unjust and unfair, and assumes that Staff is infallible and unaccountable - which is the assumption of no Staffer. Nor should it be.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[arborvita]

I would like to make a quick post in RE: Reconcilaiton Team.

The Reconcilation Team (RT) works hard and tirelessly for this community. I have seen them spend countless hours trying to get to the root of issues and work to correct them. They do in fact have a thankless job but they have the members best interest at heart in every situation. On average they have granted 30% of the appeals they work because it was in the best interest of the members.

So I would look at my post if I had an appeal and it didn't get granted and ask myself then what am I doing wrong as a poster, edit my style of posting, and try to post within the rules to even avoid having to appeal anything.

The RT is quite possibly the most difficult job on this board because they are stuck between members and staff being the mediator.

I would just like to take this chance to Thank All the RT members publicly for their hard work.

 

[desmalia]

These are separate, but related issues, I think. Regarding the Congregational areas...like I mentioned earlier we're going to edit the rule slightly to make the "protected / safe-haven" idea more explicit. The exact language is TBD...though the change really isn't a secret so my expectation is that this shouldn't be problem going forward even if I haven't had time to edit the FAQ yet.

Sounds good. I do agree that there can be a more positive spin put on the whole thing, so people can view it as an issue of respect and Christian fellowship, not hiding away in fear.

Regarding the opening up...I suppose that there are a few different approaches (and probably several mid-course corrections as we figure out what works and what doesn't). My expectation is that staff will be out posting in the forums much more. Not just modding threads and keeping things to a dull roar...but actually out posting as members (as we're regular members too)...too much time is spent in the staff forums...myself included. Likewise, when I see a user with 30 staff contacts on their account in less than a year I wonder, frankly, why they are here. Yes, modding is more art than science but at a certain point the human decision element takes a back seat to observed behavior. By the time that such people cross my radar. My view, then, is one less of looking at staff contact but one more of whether someone is being massively disruptive in a forum and driving members off. If that is the case...they're likely to receive a PM from me...

Makes sense to me.

Yes, clearly the whole infraction system must have to do with a member's history and attitude as well. If staff are familiar with that I can see how that will make it easier to make correct interpretations of each scenario. Being out there posting with us will help that a lot. And it gives staff a face for us to see as well. You're not just a bunch of faceless authoritarians. We get to see you as people with feelings and fallibility just like the rest of us.

Beyond the navigation issue...back after 777 (and even before when forums were made willy nilly) the unintended consequence was that we have a bunch of members on the site but many of them stay in one forum...along with one or two other people. I'm not really sure that serves the site. I still think that we have too many (and I'm sure further prunes will be coming) but back before Friday CF had over 700 discrete forums. That is far too many. Talk about brand dilution.

Oh my goodness, that is a huge number! I agree. There needs to be distinctions, but then there can come a time when it just goes too far. Forum needs also change over time. Some forums are crazy busy at one point and virtual ghost towns later. Sometimes it's best to shut them down and allow for growth in other areas. I fear the Fundamentalist forum may end up on the chopping block at some point. The majority of active posters in there seem to be people who are anti-fundamentalist these days. Otherwise it's basically dead. If it does go, I'll be very sad about that. But I couldn't blame anyone for closing it either. It's kinda lost its former glory.

The actual numbers changed less than I thought they would (for a variety of reasons). The number of non-moderating staff (such as myself, the accounts people etc) stayed about the same. In terms of mod staff...we had more admins and supervisors than we did more dedicated mod staff. We chopped both of their numbers pretty significantly (for a variety of reasons)...by half at least...to ensure that we had enough staff to deal with the actual day to day moderating. Likewise, internally we used to have a bunch of random staffers that would fill in when teams were short of people (vacation or whatever)...while it still exists in some form I think it was problematic that we had a bunch of staff that were not necessarily fully spun up on issues specific to certain forums. Now we have dedicated backup teams (ie: the Theology staff and the Congregational staff are backups for each other). I think in the long run this will allow for a bit more consistency across the board.

Again, makes sense to me.

We could be more clear on this, I suppose. At the same time there is an element of discretion involved. Infractions are hard-coded to trigger bans of varying length...so a list of "this is always an infraction and this is never an infraction" is difficult. Probably not the best answer but it is what it is at the moment, I guess.

Well hopefully if staff is more involved in posting on the forums some of that will actually be alleviated.

Christian Forums - Show Groups

Shows all staffers on the board, their teams and assigned forums

Perfect! Thanks!

We've done it both ways, I suppose. In the past many of the threads sort of turned into a giant pile-on and it was hard to get to the root of the matter. The old discuss rules forum was a nightmare and, frankly, when it was open it actually comprised a significant amount of board traffic as people spent more time discussing, complaining etc about various things under the sun. I'm talking like 30-40% of traffic and posts...such really is not the intent of CF. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is other than to indicate I'm generally pleased with how the S/C box operates. But I do know that the view depends on where you sit, as it were.

And again, I do understand this. I know whenever you guys start threads like this, you must take a deep breath and brace yourselves for a lot of attitude to come flying in your direction. I don't envy you that. And having a whole forum set up for whining and complaining is not ideal either because everyone has an opinion and wants to vent it somewhere. That does not always accomplish much. As staff you need to have authority over how the site is run. One of the biggest problems with 7/7/7 was that everyone began to feel entitled to "run" CF and make it into whatever they wanted it to be. That's just not feasible for a forum, especially one that is trying to establish a core identity. There's got to be a balance where you guys have that authority, but we also know that you're paying close attention to the pulse of the forum too, listening to and addressing the major concerns. It does sound like you're trying to move things in that direction, which is great.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I would like to make a quick post in RE: Reconcilaiton Team.

The Reconcilation Team (RT) works hard and tirelessly for this community. I have seen them spend countless hours trying to get to the root of issues and work to correct them. They do in fact have a thankless job but they have the members best interest at heart in every situation. On average they have granted 30% of the appeals they work because it was in the best interest of the members.

So I would look at my post if I had an appeal and it didn't get granted and ask myself then what am I doing wrong as a poster, edit my style of posting, and try to post within the rules to even avoid having to appeal anything.

The RT is quite possibly the most difficult job on this board because they are stuck between members and staff being the mediator.

I would just like to take this chance to Thank All the RT members publicly for their hard work.

I'm glad your experience with RT has been positive.

It is regrettable that I cannot say the same.

 

[drstevej]

And again, I do understand this. I know whenever you guys start threads like this, you must take a deep breath and brace yourselves for a lot of attitude to come flying in your direction. I don't envy you that. And having a whole forum set up for whining and complaining is not ideal either because everyone has an opinion and wants to vent it somewhere. That does not always accomplish much. As staff you need to have authority over how the site is run. One of the biggest problems with 7/7/7 was that everyone began to feel entitled to "run" CF and make it into whatever they wanted it to be. That's just not feasible for a forum, especially one that is trying to establish a core identity. There's got to be a balance where you guys have that authority, but we also know that you're paying close attention to the pulse of the forum too, listening to and addressing the major concerns. It does sound like you're trying to move things in that direction, which is great.

Well said!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I'm glad your experience with RT has been positive.

It is regrettable that I cannot say the same.

Nor mine.

 

[drstevej]

Nor mine.

Then take it to the Suggestion/Complaint Box. That's why it's there.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then take it to the Suggestion/Complaint Box. That's why it's there.

what makes you think it hasn't been?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by desmalia

And again, I do understand this. I know whenever you guys start threads like this, you must take a deep breath and brace yourselves for a lot of attitude to come flying in your direction.

 

[drstevej]

what makes you think it hasn't been?

I would not know since I do not have access. Nevertheless that is the place to take it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I would not know since I do not have access. Nevertheless that is the place to take it.

yes, I know. That is my standard action. Take it there, listen to the crickets chirp, eventually be told "tough cookies" and leave it at that.

I WAS however, under the impression this was a thread about changes to the appeals/staff process?

didn't know that was a problem to discuss.... changes to the appeals/staff process on that thread!

oy vey.

 

[desmalia]

Take them there(the S/C box ) and make that part of your post.... that somehow you want this discussed in the public...we may have a public forum for that subject and in the S/C box we can find it and move it there....but lets start in there ok?

Thanks for being so understanding guys

Now back to our regularly scheduled announcement thread

Just started a thread there. Thanks.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am just going to lurk awhile......thanks a heap for starting this thread!

 

[Tishri1]

Your Welcome

I would like to make a quick post in RE: Reconcilaiton Team.

The Reconcilation Team (RT) works hard and tirelessly for this community. I have seen them spend countless hours trying to get to the root of issues and work to correct them. They do in fact have a thankless job but they have the members best interest at heart in every situation. On average they have granted 30% of the appeals they work because it was in the best interest of the members.

So I would look at my post if I had an appeal and it didn't get granted and ask myself then what am I doing wrong as a poster, edit my style of posting, and try to post within the rules to even avoid having to appeal anything.

The RT is quite possibly the most difficult job on this board because they are stuck between members and staff being the mediator.

I would just like to take this chance to Thank All the RT members publicly for their hard work.

 

[Tonks]

On bans and appeals.....


1. I have a HUGE respect for Staffers. I KNOW (totally, from experience) that the overwhelming majority of these volunteers (let's not forget that part!) are doing their very best to be fair, evangelical, unbiased and helpful - not only to CF and it's goals, but to the poster. I KNOW that. I've been on all sides of that. They are required to act in accord with the rules and protocols of CF - and I think therein lies some difficulties.

We're only human but do try hard.

2. Staff are fallible, as are all posters. And they ONLY thing Staff has to go by are black letters on their monitor creating words. They CANNOT know the heart or intent or implications of the poster (unless they specifically ASK the poster - which almost never happens). As a former staff and supervisor of such, I can tell you - it's not as easy as it sounds.

This, too, is true to a degree. You're right...we cannot know the heart and mind of a poster. All we have are the words on the screen and whether or not they violate the rules. As a former staffer, too, you know that I'm not accountable for what you write...you are. Same goes the other way. I'm accountable for what I write, not you. That being said...routinely ignoring the rules (which are posted publicly) on areas of the site is a problem...regardless of the appeal to hearts and minds, as it were. Can't judge the heart...can only monitor the actions. On the internet the actions will have to cover both cases.

3. While all staff SEEK to be fair and balanced and unbiased, such is never totally possible. We use to try to keep staff balanced in terms of their views and to encourage as large a number of staff to work each Report in order to TRY to keep things as fair and balanced as possible. But even then, "mistakes" got made. UNINTENTIONALLY, I can assure you, but it happened. I'm pretty sure it still does. Staff may not respect a poster, they may disagree with the post, they may feel sure something was "implied" even though they realize it's not actually there. Perhaps the context of the post was not taken fully into account. Assumptions were made. Hey, they're only human - as are we all!!!!! And NO ONE wants it this way. Staff take their ministry seriously and WANT to be fair and just and helpful to all. I'm certain of that.

Agreed.

4. Unaccountability is never a good thing. In Reports, the "check" on the system is the appeal. Typically, this is the FIRST and ONLY opportunity the poster has to express his "side" (the "trial" is held in his absence and often without his knowledge). This is the opportunity for Staff to learn what was meant or implied, and the first opportunity for Staff to teach and counsel the poster (which, IMHO, should be the primary function of Staff - counselors, not police). This is where the "check" happens. Where it becomes possible for Staff to learn they simply misjudged the situation (if, indeed, they did). Without an appeal, injustice is locked in and made incorrectable. I honestly don't think this is what Staff WANTS.

I think that you have an incorrect view of 1) what staff wants and 2) how staff operates. As we both know...there have been many changes to the site over the past few years...to include how the staff operates. I've posted the new staff descriptions and their duties. I just copied them straight from the staff forums. So...I'd suggest that we start with a common reference point. You have opinions, I have opinions, we all have opinions. We also have a common frame of reference, now. There are many questions that the staff descriptions could generate...much easier to respond to than long soliloquies.

5. IMHO, a "warning" ("counsel" would be a better term) that does NOT count toward a ban might be unappealable BUT there still should be some opportunity for the poster to reply. That's how learning takes makes. Without such, the Staff action itself is of very limited value.

The first line of appeal is the Admins...who now are not involved in the issuing of warnings / infractions etc. They've been setup - specifically - to be the first line of appeal for a reason. Likewise, in their position description we noted that it is a requirement to make hard decisions / over turn decisions if they think that they are wrong...and not just bow to the "i don't want to hurt staff feelings by overturning" pressure. People are expected to discuss that with the various Admins. However, what you're asking (really) is to be allowed into the reports. So, I guess I'll simply note your request.

6, IF the Staff action can result in a ban (say if a certain number of actions is attained within a certain period), then IMHO they MUST be appealable. They should be unappealable ONLY if Staff is convinced that Staff CANNOT make mistakes or ever be wrong. And if Staff honestly believes that, friends, we have a problem...

You're engaging in a bit of the law of the excluded middle here.

7. Appeals are EXCELLENT learning tools for everyone. The poster learns (since he's out of the loop in the actual Staff deliberation). HERE is where he/she learns how to post and what he/she did that was regraded as unproductive or unwise. Even more, it's an opportunity for STAFF to learn. There needs to be practice discusssions of the Rules and the APPROPRIATE and consistent application of such. Staff should WELCOME the opportunity to learn how better to do their ministry. I think they do.

What makes you think that this is something we're 1) not doing now and 2) plan to robust up? You're about a week late to the conversation and this has been covered to a certain degree already.

Making official Staff actions that can lead to bans unappealable, IMHO, limits learning for both posters and Staff, is fundamentally unjust and unfair, and assumes that Staff is infallible and unaccountable - which is the assumption of no Staffer. Nor should it be.

Bans are appealable...during which everything will be reviewed. Just not every step of the way.

The funny thing with the entire discussion is the overwhelming (well, out of certain corners) cry that "this won't work!!!!" Which is very similar to the cries before of the system not working. After gathering some data we agreed with some of the conclusions and have made a change.

Of course...what this really is about (it seems) is that there have been changes made that conflict, philosophically, some with people...and everything has been declared a giant failure. Ok. Sounds good. People are free to hold whatever opinion they so desire. However, the claims are hollow. The new system has been in place for approximately 24 hours. We don't even have one data point yet. So, this is really a lot of casting bones and reading tea leaves.

As I said...I'm willing to let things run to actually gather data to see how things turn out. Until the system has had enough time to run - and allow us to make adjustments where we mess up - all of the rest of this is secondary or tertiary at best. It seems to be more: I generally think change is necessary...but the change simply isn't one that I can support. Here, I have all of these ideas to make it better. You and I have no idea whether or not it will be better or worse. We may have opinions but we have no data.

Of course there is also the argument from authority fallacy that has been occuring in the last few posts. I'm aware that several people posting in this thread were formerly on staff. I'm also aware that it was a year or two ago.

 

[BelindaP]

I'm glad your experience with RT has been positive.

It is regrettable that I cannot say the same.

My RT thread was closed for review and never reopened. Since I was banned, I couldn't even send a PM to ask what was up. Eventually, it just disappeared. Let's hope that the Advisors really mean it when they say the RT will be focusing on member service.

 

[Tonks]

My RT thread was closed for review and never reopened. Since I was banned, I couldn't even send a PM to ask what was up. Eventually, it just disappeared. Let's hope that the Advisors really mean it when they say the RT will be focusing on member service.

Thanks for withholding judgment until there is a bit more awareness.