Public Apology from Erwin

[Chrysalis Kat]

ISTM we have more rules after the reform than before.

Perhaps it's the power shift in the roolz rather than the number that you are noticing.

 

[Erwin]

I'm going to have to speed up Reforms Episode 2... at the moment things are changed in the backend, but it's now the frontend.

 

[talitha]

I'm going to have to speed up Reforms Episode 2... at the moment things are changed in the backend, but it's now the frontend.

one question: which is which?

blessings
tal

 

[Erwin]

Backend - staff issues.

Frontend - member issues.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thanks, Erwin.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Erwin

It has come to my attention that some moderators have been particularly heavy-handed in their moderation and acting outside of our moderating guidelines.

For example, some posts or threads have been deleted when they do not break our rules. Deleting of posts and threads are the LAST resort.

I am not seeing a change in this . . except perhaps it may not be happening as much, but still posts are being deleted when they do not truly break CF rules. And this action is not being used as a last resort, but as a first . . .

My concern is even greater now as there is no formal way to hold staff accountable for such actions or to get grievances regarding such actions heard . . .


How are members supposed to be able to deal effectively with such issues as they are still arising?

 

[I'ddie4him]

Erwin has already said to contact an Admin if this happens.
That is why the pm feature is there.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Erwin has already said to contact an Admin if this happens.
That is why the pm feature is there.

Contacting an Admin by PM does not necessarily equal "dealing effectively with" the problem . . .

Moving what was previously a formal process to the realm of the informal and private does not usually result in an effective way of dealing with such problems from the member's point of view . . . .

 

[I'ddie4him]

Perhaps offering solutions may help ??
Being proactive is more help than being reactive.
It is still a formal process for OW only. That has not changed.

 

[Radagast]

... People should be allowed to say what they want as long as insults are avoided...

I've seen forums that take that perspective, and they ain't pretty. Which is why CF has rules...

-- Radagast

 

[MQTA]

Erwin


I am not seeing a change in this . . except perhaps it may not be happening as much, but still posts are being deleted when they do not truly break CF rules. And this action is not being used as a last resort, but as a first . . .

My concern is even greater now as there is no formal way to hold staff accountable for such actions or to get grievances regarding such actions heard . . .


How are members supposed to be able to deal effectively with such issues as they are still arising?

Yes, emotions get in the way of logic. If I didn't think something was appropriate for a particular forum, I wouldn't post it there.

I guess I have to edit copyrighted material to make it sugar and spice for here. The message will be the same, but the vocabulary shouldn't spark a crybaby attitude.

 

[MQTA]

Well... the problem with that is you can be given an OW for something minor and your "no big deal deleted posts" become justification for an OW on the grounds you've had too much staff contact. Regardless of the fact there is no connection between the issues discussed in those 'contacts' and the post that resulted in an OW.
That's doesn't make for much fun at all.

Nope. My SS is due for renewal 11/7 and I'm strongly considering not renewing or giving any more money here. 18 months so far.

 

[I'ddie4him]

It seems the best communication is wonderfully anarchic. People should be allowed to say what they want as long as insults are avoided, and punishments for that should be meted out equally.

I have to disagree with this statement.
That system failed to work appropriately. Thats why the rules are here now.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I agree with Texas Lynn, people should be able to say as they like, barring insults. I'm not aware of when that system was tried on CF so can't comment on its alleged failure, what I can comment on is the failure of the rules. They are ignored by many of the mods, (jumping straight to closing threads, deleting posts threads etc), and used against posters whose posts contradict the personal views of some mods. Now you can attempt to go down the long and tortuous road of reporting etc etc etc. Most of us barely have enough tome to post on threads we are interested in. Are we interested enough in a big long appeal over an arguement on an internet board? Probably not.

If one is not mature enough and secure enough in ones own convictions to see a view opposing ones own in print without being offended, then perhaps one should not be on the internet. If one is unable to hold a discussion without resorting to insults the same applies. Easier to police, easier to understand, easier to obey.

As for other boards - I would argue that those boards which we have all been on that are out of hand, are not policed at all. Big difference from what we are discussing.

Erwin please dump the rules.

 

[MQTA]

when you have to make sure certain things aren't said, then maybe it's time to examine your views. Mommy, he looked at me funny. Waaaaaaaaaa.

It's funny how it's ok for one group of people to sling insults and point fingers, but anyone who defends their pov without walking on egg shells gets bashed over the head.

prejudice? bigotry? surely not LOVE

 

[I'ddie4him]

I agree with Texas Lynn, people should be able to say as they like, barring insults. I'm not aware of when that system was tried on CF so can't comment on its alleged failure, what I can comment on is the failure of the rules. They are ignored by many of the mods, (jumping straight to closing threads, deleting posts threads etc), and used against posters whose posts contradict the personal views of some mods. Now you can attempt to go down the long and tortuous road of reporting etc etc etc. Most of us barely have enough tome to post on threads we are interested in. Are we interested enough in a big long appeal over an arguement on an internet board? Probably not.

If one is not mature enough and secure enough in ones own convictions to see a view opposing ones own in print without being offended, then perhaps one should not be on the internet. If one is unable to hold a discussion without resorting to insults the same applies. Easier to police, easier to understand, easier to obey.

As for other boards - I would argue that those boards which we have all been on that are out of hand, are not policed at all. Big difference from what we are discussing.

Erwin please dump the rules.

Way back in the beginning of CF, There were only a couple rules.

Obviously the additions of more was necessary to keep the peace so to speak.

I can expand on your comments, If one was mature enough to control themselves, Rules wouldn't be necessary.
That seems to be the truth of the whole matter here.
Self accountability and Self Control.

 

[I'ddie4him]

when you have to make sure certain things aren't said, then maybe it's time to examine your views. Mommy, he looked at me funny. Waaaaaaaaaa.

Shnort.

It's funny how it's ok for one group of people to sling insults and point fingers, but anyone who defends their pov without walking on egg shells gets bashed over the head.

prejudice? bigotry? surely not LOVE

Venture into the Denominational forums just once and it is very apparent and all over the place.
What it comes down to in reality is equal and equitable enforcement of the rules.
What goes for one side goes the same for the other side.
No favoritism.

 

[MQTA]

but that's not the case now, is it?

Why can't we have unemotional discourse? Why do people take general things personally, and then hurl personal things totally unrelated to the topic, but based upon prejudices against the person who made the post, for whatever reason?

This should be a place for learning and working on going forward. You can't make everyone get along, but you can try to get people to agree to disagree, rather than just shutting down dialogue and mocking the legal system with warnings.

With understanding and dialogue, things can be worked out (not always), but when you just delete and shut people down, the issues don't go away, they fester and come out in other fashions.

People may be unseen, but there's flesh & blood pushing those keys. Everyone has feelings, not just certain people.

 

[nyj]

Why can't we have unemotional discourse? Why do people take general things personally, and then hurl personal things totally unrelated to the topic, but based upon prejudices against the person who made the post, for whatever reason?

These questions have everything to do with the people who post, not the rules which govern them while they're here.

 

[I'ddie4him]

These questions have everything to do with the people who post, not the rules which govern them while they're here.

Good point.
Which leads back to the matter of self accountability and self control.