Banning Myself

Hmmmm . . . i also thought this was a self-serve site . . .

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

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

Then allow me to explain.

If you have a website, you can't post it here.

You can't put a link or reference to it in a post.
You can't put it in your signature.
You can't put it in PMs.

Right now, you can still put it as your favorite site in your profile. But some porn sites are currently abusing this and registering profiles just to put links to their porn site here and inflate their rankings in search engines.

So that too might change because of the way it is abused (at which point there will of course be the inevitable bitching and insults hurled).

0 Replies

I completely suport timber's opinion.

As an ordinary member (are we "Veterans" supposed to be un-ordinary, since this was mentioned?), I can't nderstand all this rant.
I always think, it's my turn to be informed and get the information, not the other way round.

0 Replies

Sorry about Sugar, because I enjoyed her original writing. I also understand better about links to personal web sites (of which I have none).

One question about PM's. Can we invite people to a thread via a PM?

Caprice, I asked the same question about members sometime back, and Jes said that they would always remain there, whether they posted or no.
At the time, I was sorta paranoid about trolls.

This is a good site and I hope we can keep it together ourselves by observing our own rules of etiquette and decorum.

0 Replies

Monger: It was JUST a suggestion not a "demand".

0 Replies

I spend a lot of time on a2k, checking in off and on when I am home. I see the effects of the loads of work by the site administration, the smooth results of fine tuning. I think Craven works constantly on the site, but Jespah and the moderators put in a lot of hours a week too. I gather spam is a huge continuing frustration. The administrators don't really have time to deal individually when the spam flows like Niagara Falls.

It bothers me to see people rant about the site (as opposed to constructive comments) or hear that they do, since it is precious to me.

I guess I would also be taken aback to get a message that had the word banned in it, but I would have asked a moderator if I wasn't sure if I was or not.

I see easily that individual courtesies would be too great a task and are not owed, but I have found the site administrators/moderators to be unfailingly courteous any time I have "spoken" with them. They are all courteous people.

On the TOS change, I can't think of any other way to handle it except to
announce TOS changes, but I don't know how to make an announcement more visible - maybe a Topic about it, but even that would fade into old posts eventually.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I guess I would also be taken aback to get a message that had the word banned in it, but I would have asked a moderator if I wasn't sure if I was or not.

Just to clarify, Sugar received no message saying that she was banned. Her signature was simply edited.

"Ban" is a word she introduced to the equation in order to get in her insults.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Just to clarify, Sugar received no message saying that she was banned. Her signature was simply edited.

"Ban" is a word she introduced to the equation in order to get in her insults.

And this shows again, how rumors develop and hoaxes are constructed: this had been already clarified just a few responses before Shocked

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

"Ban" is a word she introduced to the equation in order to get in her insults.

Cant we all just get along?

0 Replies

Well Quinn, I'm a bit pissed right now about this. While perspectives can differ here's mine:

1) The no links in signature change was made weeks ago as a response to increasing spam on this site.
2) I asked the mods to vote on how to deal with it and the unanimous vote was for a technical means to be made to prevent it. The choice was against trying to get an announcement out and hope people complied but to simply use technology to lighten our burden.
3) I sat down and coded a technical way to block it.
4) New members who sign up and post their sites have their signatures edited. Many complain and ask why others are allowed to have them.
5) As the signatures are noticed they are edited. This is part of a significant workload and while occasionally a member gets upset and causes more work inw ay of explanations etc for the most part this is straightforward.

See a sig link and remove it.

6) When Sugar's link appeared on my radar I removed it.

Now I really do understand why she might have been angry about this but her response has simply really made me angry.

What I did was simply edit her signature and remove a link. Her link is still accessible under each post only half a centimeter away.

Her subsequent insults were simply hurtful. In response to removing her link she tried to imply that I was greedy and only announce things when it's about donations and such.

This was quite mean and I regret very much having ever opened up the possibility of donations because of the rude people who would use it as entitlement.

If I had to do it again I'd have found another way or just let the site close. Because I dislike very much the insulting insinuations of the variety she's tossed at me.

She went on to call em a jackass and a "whiny gestapo". I'd not whined at all, I'd simply done a perfunctory link removal of the variety I do a lot.

She said she wished she had her $20 donation back and played the "I donated" card.

So I wrote to her and apologized and asked for a paypal address to send her $20 dollars.

I was offended by her insults and her implication about money and I don't want her $20.

Her email response to me included further insults that I will not quote here.

And this si why I'm mad. What I did by removing her link is not in any way proportionate to the insults she flung at me.

Like I said, I'm just a wee bit tired of being shat on for such trivial reasons.

I apologized to her, removing her link wasn't meant to piss her off and it was just a function of maintaining this site.

Her response was continued insults and at this moment I'm having a hard time accepting the courtesy angle at all. She's shown absolutely no courtesy.

Yes, I wish we could all get along. But at the same time, when someone decides to take a **** on me I will respond to it.

I'm sorry that I upset her and have apologized for this. I still maintain that her insults are inappropriate.

I know you say that's just Sugar and her sarcasm is her staple but I don't think that's an acceptable excuse for her meaness here.

I accept it no more than you would if I just said, "oh well that's just me" if I did you a wrong.

I like her, I like her sarcasm and I have never had a problem with her until she decided to **** on me.

Yes, I want to get along. But IMO this is a message best delivered to teh one flinging insults. I've never indulged in the insulting namecalling about Sugar that she has about me.

My "original sin" is to remove her link. What she thinks is an appropriate response is something I consider insulting and rude.

I've not treated her that way, I apologized and offered to send her $20. HEr responses to me have made me angry.

0 Replies

Craven, I think Quinn was being a bit sarcastic herself. That "...can't we all get along..." was a reference to Rodney King's quote, after the country went wild when he was severely beaten by police, and it was caught on tape. I'm not speaking for Quinn, though, as she can quite adroitly speak for herself.

0 Replies

I know the reference, I took it to mean she was asking/suggesting that we get along.

It's something I'd like, but 'tis hard when it's not a shared consideration.

0 Replies

Hmmmm ... nobody gets along with me most times ... I cope with it Mr. Green

Sometimes I even enjoy hell out of it Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I was hoping youd let it go actually and not be so mean spirited. I can understand your being upset as I can understand Sugar being upset.
Funny thing is, Sugar hasnt come back in here since the first part of this 'topic'.
Im starting to get really irritated over it. (NO, I wasnt all that irritated over it before, just putting in my two cents and hoping it would help the situation)

You can have your perspective, it is realtive and acceptable, I hope you take the same consideration for mine.

1. Months ago I sat with Sugar (you know, in the flesh) discussing how she had worked out with you having her be able to list blog there.
2. Sugar checked the TOS before she posted this. She saw that it had been changed far previously to when you removed the link. You had sufficient time to contact her regarding:
a. your reneg on the previous arrangement
b. the change is TOS
c. the possibility of giving her the opportunity to change it herself
(I dont think any of the above by the way would have made the situation much less irritating to all involved however, it might possible could have, I dont know, Im just guessing here.)
3. Sugar didnt post anything as you have listed here, you took information from her personal sight and decided that was a good argument for you to use against her. Even though she has never used the name of your site or links or anything, no one unless they know both sites would know what was going on. It also is, as Ive said previously, more of a diary type site and I hope you realize what happens when you look in someone elses diary now.
4. I wont quote ANY of the email either Craven-lets just say thats me still being nice and frankly keeping personal personal...lets see if we can maybe say its equal
5. Your continued arguements makes me think 'the man doth protest to much' as Sugar is not here to defend herself and I shall not speak for someone else.
6. All I can hear is you ranting about how busy you were to do anything yet you've spent all this time on this.
7. Dont worry about the $20.00 I'll give you another just to let it go, of which I doubt you can let it go. And in regard to that...of her ranting of her own personal thoughts--that was the sarcastic part.

Frankly, Id give her $20.00 as well to come back in here and reply to you for the entertainment value alone.

0 Replies

quinn1 wrote:

I was hoping youd let it go actually and not be so mean spirited.

I am not being meanspirited. If you don't "let it go" are you being meanspirited?

Quote:

Funny thing is, Sugar hasnt come back in here since the first part of this 'topic'.

So, is an insult delivered to my inbox somehow better?

Quote:

Im starting to get really irritated over it. (NO, I wasnt all that irritated over it before, just putting in my two cents and hoping it would help the situation)

I'm sorry that you are irritated.

Quote:

1. Months ago I sat with Sugar (you know, in the flesh) discussing how she had worked out with you having her be able to list blog there.

Like I said, I had no such arrangement with her.

Quote:

2. Sugar checked the TOS before she posted this. She saw that it had been changed far previously to when you removed the link. You had sufficient time to contact her regarding:
a. your reneg on the previous arrangement
b. the change is TOS
c. the possibility of giving her the opportunity to change it herself

Quinn, tell ya what. I won't tell you what you have time for if you do the same for me.

No, I do not have time to walk people through A2K rules. And again, I had no such arrangement with Sugar.

Quote:

3. Sugar didnt post anything as you have listed here, you took information from her personal sight and decided that was a good argument for you to use against her.

Correct, when she descided to insult me on her site I referenced said insults because it's part of her rude response.

Quote:

It also is, as Ive said previously, more of a diary type site and I hope you realize what happens when you look in someone elses diary now.

So I'm supposed to think he insults are not rude because they are on her blog? Is there another excuse to cover her insults by email?

Quote:

4. I wont quote ANY of the email either Craven-lets just say thats me still being nice and frankly keeping personal personal...lets see if we can maybe say its equal

Feel free to quote my emails to her. Tell ya what. I'll quote them myself. They are my emails.

Quote:

Sugar,

I removed your signature. I understand that you wished to be notified of this in some way in advance but I can't possibly do that. As it stands I get several hundred emails and over 50 PMs a day (so much that I don't see most of them because the new ones push the old ones out of my inbox). I remove several links every day and I can't possibly be doing the personalized notice thing. In this regard I think you are being unreasonable to expect individual notices.

That being said, there certainly can be a lot more documentation of the rules done. And since I doubt anyone else will find the time to do it it is on my to-do list (though it will be a while before I can get around to this).

But I think you are exhibiting a double-standard. You expect personalized notice for something so insignificant as removing a link in a sig but think nothing of impulsively insulting the job A2K staff does and calling me a jackass and the moderators "whiny gestapo".

I think you are being both unreasonable and rude even though I understand your frustrations. I too am frustrated and have been trying to "retire" from A2K. I don't care for the extra aggravation.

I am writing you because you played the "I donated" card and while it's policy not to respond to this (to prevent the notion that those donations grant special status) I want to address it myself. Please let me know what PayPal email to send it to. I don't want you to have this card to play when you hold such a negative opinion of me and are willing to disparage me at your lesiure.

In short, I want no favors from people who disparage me as a jackass and "whiny gestapo" for a perfuctory task I did. I wish to rectify this and eliminate one source of the drama.

Robert

Her response, which I do not quote herein, was rude Here's my next email:

Quote:

Sugar,

I did not take content from your site. I referenced publically posted
content (about me) in a completely legal manner.

Secondly I don't run this site by myself. The decisions involved were voted
on and I have been extracating myself from any involvement in this. I asked
the moderators if we should announce the sig rule or just put it into
place.

They voted for putting it into place with me coding a javascript to prevent
links.

This type of episode is not just frustrating for you and a while ago I
approached the mods with a plan to get me out of this entirely. I want no
more part in this.

I agree with you completely in that a better way to announce rules needs to
be put in place. Adding them to the TOS doesn't seem to work but
announcvements mean that the announcements have to forever be updated.

It's not as trivial as you think it would require much more work than you
can imagine, but I do agree with you in that it could be improved.

And lastly I'm sorry. This is why I don't want to do this anymore. I don't
like pissing people off.

Please let me know what paypal email address to send it to. That is
something I can rectify. And if you are gone, I'm both sorry and will miss
you. Even if I disagree with what you think I should have done.

Robert

Her responses were all quite rude, ingoring what I'd said and choosing instead to simply insult me.

Now I know you are close friends and your friendship is such that you are willing to overlook her wrongs, but being that her insults are directed at me please understand if I feel differently.

Quote:

5. Your continued arguements makes me think 'the man doth protest to much' as Sugar is not here to defend herself and I shall not speak for someone else.

Well Quinn, I'm afriad I'll have to decide for myself what is an adequate protest of an insult directed at me. I understand that Sugar is your friend and you are willing to write off her insults as merely just the way she is but do understand that you can't expect me to see things the same way.

Quote:

6. All I can hear is you ranting about how busy you were to do anything yet you've spent all this time on this.

Indeed. Because of Sugar's episode I am speding time on this. Of course this is not nearly as much time as I'd spend if I were to have to walk each member through each rule.

For the most part people do not react in such fashion and simply accept the fact that their link was removed.

Quote:

7. Dont worry about the $20.00 I'll give you another just to let it go, of which I doubt you can let it go. And in regard to that...of her ranting of her own personal thoughts--that was the sarcastic part.

Quinn, I'd prefer it if you don't start with the money insults as well. The implication that I am greedy is insulting.

Quote:

Frankly, Id give her $20.00 as well to come back in here and reply to you for the entertainment value alone.

Please do. I'd like for her to have the integrity to defend her insults and reaction.

While you are at it why not review what great wrong I have supposedly done to her. Why not review the content of my subsequent communications with her.

I did not insult her and her response is simply disproportionate to my having removed her link.

0 Replies

Sometimes Craven you can be really childish and idiotic.
Sorry you're irritated as well.

Im done with this. You can continue on if you wish.

0 Replies

quinn1 wrote:

Sometimes Craven you can be really childish and idiotic.
Sorry you're irritated as well.

Im done with this. You can continue on if you wish.

Quinn,

I do not have any insults for you. I am sorry I can't reciprocate but I will tell you that your insults are unwarranted. I can, indeed, be both those things. Just as can anyone else. But in this situation I've not stooped to the levels that yourself and Sugar seem comfortable at.

I've not called you names, I've not called Sugar names.

Apparently we have very different criteria for what is childish.

I will also disconsider your appeal to courtesy because you clearly make no effort towards it here.

0 Replies

I get along with you Timber!

Er, Quinn - I don't think one can complain about someone reading a diary when it is an open blog!

Craven, I don't expect a reply about this - but I hope you are over-reacting a bit about the donations? I would have hoped that most people were not petty enough to use any donations they made in that way, even when they are in conflict with you, or the site? Although, perhaps 'tis human nature - since I certainly would not have thought Sugar would do so...

You see, a donation is exactly that - a donation - it was never sold as giving particular rights and such. Had I been Craven, I would have been very fearful of asking for the help (and my sense of him is that he is a far more independent and ornery critter than I am, and hence that it was exponentially harder for him) partly for exactly this reason - that people would use it as a weapon when they were angry. Personally, I hope that, should I ever fling off in high dudgeon from this site, I would have sufficient honour not to indulge in such tactics - just as I do not say to friends/lovers when I am angry - "But I took you to dinner last night/bought this for you etc., how can you be so mean!"

I think I have some sense of how incredibly hard it was for Craven to ask for money for the site - and I am very grateful to him for bending, and being gracious and kind enough to do so - because, like so many of us, I get a lot from here, and I would have been very sad to see it go under.

Seeing it flung in his face makes me think it was very selfish of me to be glad he was prepared to ask for help. I think this kind of thing would cause me to "over-react", too. But, then, I do not have the kind of hide that would allow me to deal with the constant attacks and vilification that are part of running a site such as this.

As I said above, I am very sad that Sugar was offended and angry - but also very sad that Craven is worn down by the demands of the site.

Quinn, I guess this discussion can only tread its weary way round and round, so I will drop it after this - seems like it is getting more inflamed, rather than less, which makes me regret that I, for one, made a second comment - I guess each of us tends to want to offer a word in support of the point of view we more incline toward.

I miss Sugar already, dammit.

0 Replies

Hmm - seems I posted behind the times - oh well....

0 Replies

Just a quick in and out here, and let's hope it ends. Quinn, yes, Sugar's sarcasm was a trademark, but there is a point when sarcasm can just turn mean. I should know, as I am a sarcastic, cynical person myself, and sometimes let it go over the line. Just ask my wife. When another is hurt or offended by what is supposedly mere sarcasm, the polite thing to do is back off and find a nicer way to handle things. Also, Craven never wanted to ask for donations to the site. It was a very hard thing for him to do, and I remember the grief he went through when he first had to suggest it. As for the rest of the situation, I stick by my original post that it is just silly, and should be left alone at this point, as it's really getting overblown.

0 Replies

Banning Myself

Quick Links

My Account

able2know