Banning Myself

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.

No, no - I meant I hoped this sort of thing - the use of the donation to bludgeon you with - was not common.

Is it possible for you to take some time out & concentrate on finding a new job?

Craven, I think you have done an extraordinarily good job with this site and personally do not think you have anything to explain or apologize for. Most of us, well at least myself, are getting a free ride here and a quality ride at that.

So Craven, now I HAVE personally attacked you because I said sometimes you were childish and idiotic?
Lets clarify something there buddyboy
childish and idiotic are behaviors, and I stated the fact that sometimes this is your behavior. This isnt a personal attack, this would be my observation of your behavior. Maybe I should make sure you dont feel badly and say sometimes you act immature and silly? Isnt that just as bad to your sensitive nature?

I dont understand you and this communication has gotten completely out of hand. I would wish you to cease and dissist sir as I am starting to take this personally.

I have previously given you your props and tried to quelch the discussion in a friendly like manner. Its not working.

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.

Quinn, I won't engage in pedantics over whether or not it constitutes a personal attack. Your post isn't pulled and nothing will happen so I won't get into the letter of the 'law' when the 'law' won't come into play.

I will, however, say that I have not made similar comments about you and really don't have anything of that ilk to say about you.

Those specific comments did not offend me. But I do think you are bing underhanded with your reaction.

I removed a signature. I apologized for angering Sugar and am met by these insults on both of your parts.

My point is that you are not affording me a courtesy that I have afforded you. I have not called you names. I have not called Sugar names. I honestly don't really have anything negative to say about either of you. I do, however, disagree with both of your reactions.

I do not consider that to be a reasonable request nor do I think it's sourced in any concern for courtesy at all.

I suspect that nothing less than saying that Sugar was reasonable to equate link removal on a message board to the Holocaust is what you would consider appropriate. I suspect that any mention made of Sugar's multiple insults is objectionable to you.

I've disagreed with Sugar's criticisms and voiced them as publically, if in less vulgar fashion, that either yourself or Sugar.

It's my opinion that I'm making far more of an effort for friendliness than either yourself or Sugar have.

I dont see that, could you explain that to me further please?
Im an not an underhanded person so, I could take great offense to that but, instead I am going to say, I dont get you Craven, could you please let me know what you are saying?

Its not meant to be insulting, its meant to be a discussion to have possible resolve.

Also, Im trying to see how you could construe someone talking outside of this forum as a personal attack on you that you should not have to deal with because you havent said anything about them.

You have done something that they have taken offense to, which usually makes people say things in the heat of the moment, in their own thoughts, etc etc.--if you dont want that kind of thing to bother you, dont read it or dont let it.

We disagree, that is fine. I have tried to see your point, and cannot.

I suppose your idea of courtesy and my idea of courtesy will continue to be of different natures.

I would not be looking for you to say Sugar was reasonable, at this point, even if she blaringly was reasonable in her actions, I dont believe you would admit that.

You are grouping me above as if I hurled these objectionable insults at you myself

Although, Sugar hasnt really said much as of late, it curious you just cant let it go.

I was hoping to find that there would be some way that if there was to be some kind of interference in some way with profiles, sig lines and the like that rather than simply putting it in TOS, if a change is made that perhaps someone on staff could make sure the person so affected would be properly contacted as to such an item.

Especially perhaps those people who have been here for a great deal of time and perhaps do not go back in and read TOS because you know, we read that previously, didnt know it changed all that often.

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.

The greatest thing to come of this that I hoped for, I can see will never come because you have become too interested on how you have been personally wounded to see how your actions can effect others.

You have plenty of excuses, no time, rudeness, spammers, great deal of work, etc etc etc but, you cant come to something that makes more sense than how you handled this particular situation.

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?

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

Quinn, feel free to continue the "**** on Craven" party. I will continue to address you civilly..