Banning Myself

No. But at the same time it's not viable for each opinion to be solicited about every act.

For every link in a sig out there I get dozens of complaints that "she gets to have a link" and such.




Huh? As I said, I don't plan to be doing this. I'm fed up with all the **** that comes along with it and want no part of it.

In the future people will have to take their dumps on others because I don't plan to be involved.

There are templated notices moderators send out about more "important" actions they atke.

Signatures and other decisions do not currently have notifications. If the mods want to send them tehy can, if not people will have to get over it.



Not really, but I don't think that's a big deal. I like to read her blog because of the sarcasm and I don't mind being insulted (aside from her "I donated" card which I hope to rectify).

I perfectly understand her frustration but at the same time think she's making an unreasonable demand on my time and anyone else who does these task's time.

And as I keep repeating if the mods want to dedicate their time to increasing their workload and personalizing every decision they can do so.



I don't mind it. If she were nice all the time I'd like her a lot less, teh edge is part of her style that I like (that and saying that women are tapped). The point is that she's berating me for a courtesy she thinks she deserves but at the same time she demonstrates that sometimes there are laspes between what courtesy one thinks is appropriate to give and what the other things should be received.

So when I removed her sig, I did no think it a big enough deal that a personal note had to be sent. I did not expect it to be something to cause the insult she felt and the subsequent insult she decided to dish out.

When she decided to "ban" herself and insult me she obviously didn't think it was discourteous (or didn't care).

Either way, there are laspes in intended/perceived courtesy.

Thanks, Craven, for looking that up. I'm glad that people who have blogsites or galleries can still provide links via their Profile page. I'd forgotten.

I have "heard you say" before that it is too time-consuming to notify members. Changing signatures is a way personal thing, so I can understand being miffed, just as I can understand your not wanting to do a lot of notifications. Anyway, I hope Sugar comes back.

I'm new here, and I am a little bit confused about you Craven.

You don't have the title of "Moderator", right? Do you do the same thing as a moderator, but without an official title?

Long, and changing, story Kevin.

The simple answer is that there are moderators with no titles. Helps reduce backlash.

Personally, I think this whole thing is silly, especially as I thought that somebody as tough as Sugar wouldn't really let this get to her. Anyway, I do hope you decide to rethink this whole thing and come back, as I, like others, really respect and appreciate your approach. As an example, I don't think there has been a post you have made in the Relationships forum that I haven't agreed with. Most of us take a kid glove approach there, but you aren't afraid to just kick some arse, which is often needed there. If you don't return, you will be missed.

Okay, my understanding was that this particular issue had been hashed out between the two of you previously. Now after re-reading this is seems that, while it was hashed out and some sort of an agreement was made, since then the rules were changed. Sometime between the rules being changed and yesterday evening when her sig was edited this was never brought to the attention of Sugar or other moderators? I could understand where this would be time consuming and perhaps even irritating.
I understand your frustration with these kinds of things Craven, really I do--I have no idea of how you have the time to do any of this, and at this point I wonder if you ever have any fun at all anymore, which is sad really.
I dont think Sug ever asked directly of you to have been notified, I believe that was me, and I was just asking why not, and not just to you but to the moderators as well. Now I understand, you dont have the time. You do however have the time when it is of an important nature to you, which this you didnt think was. Thats fine as well. Now you've spent all this time today getting this hashed out, thats another sad thing about how little time you do have.

When Sug decided to ban herself, she was simply following the rules. I can see this very clearly although you take it as some over reaction. I think of it as adult thing to do to say the least. You say she isnt banned but, how would she know--because banning would have gotten her a PM and she should know this? How, she didnt know her sig was inappropriate. It shows a lapse on your end if anything.
Once again just trying to shine the light here, dont take it badly, its all about finding a better way to communicate.

Yes, in fact there was a vote on what to do several weeks ago and the TOS was changed. Certain moderators seem unaware of this and this highlights the difficulty of keeping even a handful of people informed.

If it's hard to keep even the people involved in the decisions aware it is much harder to keep completely disinterested persons aware until it becomes an issue for them.

Furthermore this change WAS posted to a forum that you have access to. Someone ran into the technical prevention of links in sigs and asked about it. The change was mentioned there.

Did this mean you are aware of it? No. And this is another complication. No matter what is done to make members aware of changes most will not know or care until it becomes an issue for them.

At which point they tend to pull the whole "forum Nazi" thing. The objections seem to have more to do with the very restriction and not a whole lot to do with how it was handled.

Want anothere example? When someone registers the rules on spam are sent to them 2 times. Once in an email that they have to read and click on to activate their account. Again in a PM that they receive automatically when joining.

Without fail, these people claim that they did not know and that they should have been told beforehand.

Here's a recent example:

Member registers.
An email is dispatched to them with the activation code. In the email is a clear warning about posting links to their site.
Member activates the account and received a popup upon log in in with a PM.
In this PM the no posting links rule is again clarified.
Member starts posting links.
The links are removed by several moderators.
The user keeps posting so they are added to a spam blacklist to filter the links.
The user notices the fultering and starts to add spaces to get around the filter.
The user's solicitations are pulled.
The user acknowledges that the threads "disappears" and posts again, saying to moderators "this is not spam, leave it".
User is banned.
User writes the email provided to banned users to do the "forum Nazi" thing.

Today I got over 50 of em. All the same big bold letters. Sugar's kind words are just a drop of rain in this nice steady flood.

This is a cycle that happens time and time again. There is no amount of notifications that will eliminate this.

Communication is being blamed here but IMO it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Can things be improved? Yes!

Will it stop people from pulling the "forum Nazi" game? I doubt it.

Communication seems to just be the scapegoat.



I don't have time for this and a while back I decided to quit. Things are being done so that I don't have to be a part of this anymore and I look forward to it.

I plan to be Nazi-free very shortly.

And to get this done we are trying to document as much as possible. Improving communication and all that. As the site grows this is a bigger and bigger task.

We're working on it when we can.



The moderators voted on this, wherever you are getting your information it is just wrong.



I disagree, there is no rule on banning for links in sigs unless the user continues to put the link back or there is some other criteria.

I can't agree that she's "simply following the rules" I think this is a form of.. protest (the most positive word I can describe it as).



When a user is banned, opening A2K displays the message that the user is banned as well as an email address that they can contact in case the ban was in error (though it's usually just used to say that moderation is a violation of free speech and that moderators are "forum Nazis").

Almost every day someone asks me if they are banned. It usually means that their ISP had connection problems (any 403 http error results in emails to me about bans). I've said it many places but when a user is banned they get a message saying that they were "banned".



Nothing was done to Sugar for not knowing except that it was removed.

Removing the link is a notification about the rules, so I suppose what you are saying that the notification should be different.

The TOS was updated, but I understand that few have ever read it.

I'm sure there are more palatable ways to inform a member. For example a PM could be sent requesting the user to remove it. Then a moderator could make a note to check it the next day or so to see if it was.

But that's not what usually happens. What usually happens is that the notice receives the same rant. It's seen as a chance to debate the rule and argue why it's such a "forum Nazi" move.

The moderation becomes impersonal because personalization is abused almost infailingly.

The TOS is updated any time there is a change in rules, I agree that more can be done to improve the way changes are divulged. That's more work that needs to be done and this highlights why.

Personally, I don't foresee anyone having extra time to improve these things and I personally will drastically reduce the time I spend on it so if it happens it happens. I don't expect it to.



No problem, but when you start comparing me to Nazis I get to ignore you, hmmkay?

hehe..I would not comapre you to Nazis (Thats a Sugarsim..I ten to compare people to horses arses )
Okay..let me explain one thing right up front here before I really get into saying its okay Craven. YES, I do have access to a forum where certain items are posted, and frankly I look once a week and not that very closely either. Now, I have not gone in there either last night nor today because even though I have that ability I am trying to stay in this discussion as if I didnt have access to that forum, I think it only right in this situation trying to discuss how this might seem to someone outside that forum, as Sugar is.
Now...

THE TOS WAS CHANGED!!??? MY GOD MAN--thats important, how did I miss that??? dang..me bad.

Personally I have more of a problem with how something is handled rather than a restriction, but thats just me and I can see where it would/could be the other way around for others.
AS far as I can tell the whole spam thing is really not of regular members, correct? Not veteran or Seasoned members at least proportionately yes? So, some spam artist give ya grief--blah, not important. A veteran Member though--Im happy you have taken time to address the issue and can at least say you've stepped up to the plate on it, great appreciation there guy.
QUIT!? NAZI FREE?!
MY GOD I REALLY HAVE BEEN WORKING TO HARD.
I am glad to hear you are shortly going to feel better at some point but, I hope it doesnt damage the site in the same swipe.

RE:



I was speaking about this message here in particular--that Sugar didnt ask to be notified, I asked why she wasnt. I was and am asking that if she wasnt notified, why not, and that question isnt just directed to you but to the other moderators as well, comprende?

You disagree on Sugar banning herself because you simply see it as a form of protest, be that as it may, its also showing you there is a hole in the plan, a big one--so, anything happens we just accept it and if we dont log on to find the banned thing we should be thankful and roll with it without questioning? From an equally twisted view as that previously then, if there was something done wrong that was changed and she had to simply assume she did wrong as there was no communication, then, you have to assume your banned, or heck, ban youself because they probably dont have the time to ban you. Maybe shes just giving herself a few days, I dont know.

but, I ramble.....carry on

Sugar was notified. Her link was removed and a notice left there. That was a form of notification.

If you are asking why she didn't receive a PM or something it's because it is against current policy to send out individual notices for this level of action because of the extra work load it represents.

Like I said, if the moderator team wants to change this and assume the extra work load that's fine. Either way it won't be my time in the future.

If you are asking why there wasn't an announcement, well, maybe there should have been. Maybe there will be in the future. It will depend on what the mods have time for and what they decide.

I can certainbly think of many ways that moderation can be improved. What I can't think of is a way for involved parties to have more time to take up the associated chores.

But no matter what is done there will be people who are not satisfied.

Another example: When I do work on the server that causes rebooting and short downtime I get gobs of emails saying "the site is down!!!".

So I usually announce it really quick and then do it.

What happens? I get people telling me that the announcements are "drama".

There's no pleasing everyone. Even if things were done to your exact specifications there'd just be others hurling their insults.



I don't disagree with it. I think it's overreaction and I think she was insultingly rude. Because of her discourtesy I have a hard time accepting the notion that more courtesy should have been extended to her.

What great holocaust happened to her? She had a link removed, now the link is only displayed half a centimeter away.

What I am saying is that this is hardly a tragedy and hardly worthy of her reaction.

Besides the things you already know that she said there were others, and while I've already apologized to her for this I do not accept her insults about this as anything more than melodramatic overreaction.

She said a lot of other things to me that were mean and quite frankly it's because of this kind of reaction that I want no more part in the moderation of A2K.

It's tiresome to have people want to take a dump on you for the great injustice you inflict on their signature.

I'm only here for a minute (I have a lot of icky stuff going on offline, house stuff). Hence, I'll have to be quick about this.

First off, Sugar is not banned. If she's signed out of the site or wants to take a break for a few days, of course that's her prerogative. But she's certainly not banned.

Second, I'm sorry about the lack of communication. As can be imagined, it's not easy handling that, plus everything else around here. I realize that sounds like an excuse but the fact of 11,000 members and far fewer Moderators and Administrators than that means that personalization goes by the boards. That's unfortunate in many ways and I understand Sugar's frustration.

Finally, we've had a problem from Day One with posting announcements of changes that are skimmed if not passed by entirely, making a Terms of Service available that few people read, and a general posting presence that is often ignored. I'm not saying that Sugar has done that but we know that a lot of members have. Short of me calling everyone up and reading the Terms of Service to them, and making sure they all understand it, I don't know how to get that information across. The information is there, and of course I welcome suggestions from everyone re better ways to disseminate it. Thank you.

PS I hope Sugar returns; of course she's welcome back.

This is just sad. I hope Sugar comes back, and I hope Craven is, indeed, less busy soon....

It is sad, in many ways.
I can understand both sides of the matter and really think that Sugar took it personally as well as Craven on what transpired. Whos really to say who should feel what, we are all different and will respond differently.
I think finding that middle ground, that acceptable area is a tedious chore for the moderators and give them great credit since yes, the site has increased in size and the nature of things that do transpire range so dramatically.
I do hope, and think it has opened up some communication and thats always nice, even if it is irritating at times.
The Terms of Service I believe is much like the license agreements we have all seen when installing software, we pretty much know what it says but, how many times do you actually read all of it? When do you scruitinize it?
When there is a problem, of course.
Tis only natural, humans and all.
Okay, maybe human isnt how we can explain a great may things around here but, I think you know what Im saying.
I now take the time to apologize for making an issue, and taking up valuable time which could be used for other items not so trivial. I am simply trying to prove a point, and if its well taken, then at least it was worth the discussion.
I am very serious however in that I hope Sugar returns when she has considered herself well chastised for her actions.
I am lucky enough to be able to ring her up whenever I want so, I feel luckier than many around and about.
Great appreciation to Craven for his replies.

If anyone would like me to try and do anything to help around the site, I would not mind. Don't know what I could do, but I may be able to perform menial, laborious administrative tasks :wink:

Just thought I'd offer.

I have a suggestion for future, uh, situations.
Upon doing a very cursory view of members, I notice quite a number have either zero or less than 10 messages. Perhaps a notification could be made to those members who have at least x number of posts and who have been members for an x amount of time, as those members wouldn't number in the thousands. (Maybe not even hundreds?) Surely those who have been around for a while and have contributed to the exchanges here could be given a more personal touch?

Just a thought.

Just talking as Monger here, not on behalf of the moderating staff or anything, but I've got a somewhat opposing suggestion, Caprice. What if some people tried to demand less of a free website run by volunteer staff, and tried not to impose requirements on the way mods spend their time dealing with these kinds of situations?

I have so given up trying to figure the rules in regards to links!

Looked at the TOS? They have been updated....


Also NOT speaking as anything but an ordinary member:

Look, I understand where Sugar was coming from - I got unreasonably stroppy about a couple of unannounced moves early in the history of the site - because I had no idea of the reality of the work the running of the site took - and I still get peeved from time to time. But - I actually do realise that this this is silly. Rules have to be made - and sometimes altered according to circumstances. It really is impossible to know when people are going to find something a drama and a personal insult. I say this not from experience running anything here (because I don't!) , but from running ANYTHING.

The biggest drama is how hard it is to predict what people will make of any activity or decision. Everything you do alays seems to upset SOMEONE - even if you try hard not to.

I have had the experience of being called a fascist dictator, or some such nonsense, for making extremely minor decisions, that I was authorised to make. It is a silly accusation that people make all the time, as I have complained elsewhere, without seeming to realise how nasty and serious an accusation it is. I speak in hyperbole myself, all the time, but really, with all the sensitivity in the world, it is hard to see removing a link as equal to a holocaust!

That being said, I DO understand how Sugar felt - but I also think that, sadly, she has over-reacted. As we all do, sometimes - (I speak as someone who has made the odd dumb and over-sensitive grand gesture myself - and quite bloody recently, too - dammit - will I never grow up?!) Sigh.

Like I said - it is really sad. I hope she comes back.

It is a sad state of affairs. Its a situation that, perhaps can be remedied, perhaps not.
I have very serious doubts that Sugar will return. In fact, I would fall on my face in shock and surprise if she did.
Personal opinion can certainly vary on this, and in fact has. Is it over reaction of some, well, yes, it could be. Is it an affliction on someone's 'personal' space, could be viewed that way. Could be viewed a great deal of ways. Are any more right or wrong than the other? Are any more serious, or perhaps thought provoking?
The important thing is that we talk about why we have now lost such a valuable member, what we can do as regular folks to help out, and what can be done in the future to prevent the same thing from happening again, if anything. At least letting the powers that be know that heck, this could have been solved this way or that and perhaps some simple, non time consuming action could be taken in the future.
I also am one who has dealt with large numbers of people in a corporate volunteer situation and know full well you are not going to satisfy everyone, you are going to make someone feel badly or irritated, etc etc. Its about doing what you can when you can and when thses things arise, the best way to deal with them in the future. I also know it aint fun.
ah well.

Just timber talkin' here ... I wanna say the point was made earlier that some folks demand an awful lot of a website they use essentially for free, and for no purpose other than personal entertainment. If using the website works for you, cool ... use it. If not, use your head for something other than banging on walls. Otherwise, you're just plain being silly. End of rant.

Thanks Monger.

And to this may I add that it'd be nice if people didn't treat a link removal as a holocaust.

The suggestions for more "consideration" are nothing short of a demand for better free service and more time on the part of the volunteers.

Episodes such as this are the reason why I plan to reduce the time I spend working on this site, not increase it.

It's not like my goal in life is to have a financial liability of a website where I work more than 40 hours a week AND where members get to take a **** on me any time a policy or decision isn't palatable to them.

This is why I'm quitting, if the remaining mods decide to do the baby sitting and hand holding and walk members through the holocaust that is a link removal that's fine with me. They'll be setting themselves up for lots of grief.