LOST & MISPLACED A2K people.

msolga- I hear you, and I can see your point. To me though, the overriding consideration is making rules that benefit both the site primarily, and the entire membership.

Too bad that the PMs have been suspended. In the past, if you were became close to a member, you could always share E Mail addresses through PMs.

nimh, if you recall, young Rick is now in college. That does tend to take up one's time.

Yes, the PM situation has made communication more difficult. But I'm sure that THAT was for a good reason, too. Though being a sticky nose with a colourful imagination, I find myself speculating on what actually occurred!

I had assumed from jespah's announcement that PMs would be restored eventually. It's probably just a matter of time.

That was my understanding, too, cav.

Let me reiterate that I have the utmost respect for all of the moderators here. It is a breath of fresh air to just be talking about this situation and how we as members feel about it. We members have a totally different perspective than the moderators do, I understand. That can result in feelings of "what the ****?" when someone we enjoy posting with is suddenly gone. Makes one feel a little bit nervous. What if I post something that gets me banned? Should I edit myself so as not to offend anyone? It becomes self-censorship at that point.

I do see swimpy's point of view and even share it somewhat. I don't see what is wrong with a diplomatic statement about a banning, such as, "Edgar lost his cool and overstated his position arguing with Cav about the relative merits of deep-fried Twinkies versus cherry cobbler. The topic has been locked and edgar given a time out to cool off." It's something we can all relate to, because all of us are inclined to grow impatient with what we view as intransigence in the face of irrefutable logic. In the case of blatant disregard, where one has been banned permanently, a vague gist of the matter without too many details seems in order. I am uncomfortable with drom's banning, because she is a friend of mine, whom I regard as exceptionally gifted and sensitive. Now I may never hear from her again and it's shrouded in mystery.

hear, hear, edgar

I can understand your point, Swimpy - but I do understand this as well:


And that's quite different to your scenario. (Craven's link above to jespah's post give some good advice, too.)

Generally, I applaud the staff here and don't want to make waves. But I have lost something in the process that's very important to me.

I think we've all seen minor infractions addressed in fairness and compassion. I have experienced MOD judgement from the side of the complainant and the transgressor. I can't see room for improvement. Jespah's brief explanation of the aforementioned member's dispatch alluded to something beyond a minor infraction.

I would like to give my vote of unqualified confidence to those toiling on our behalf. I think most of us were a bit shocked, because such an act by the aforementioned member seems quite out of character.

This is where trust for our A2K administration comes in handy.

I think one of the things we've all learned at various stages of our internet lives is that if there is a poster somewhere who you don't want to lose track of - you make sure you have contact info outside of any particular forum or site.

I'm part of a support tripod that means a lot to me - it's has helped me sort out a lot over the last 4 years. Met the other 2 at Abuzz - one posts here regularly, the other doesn't. We shared our personal contact info about three years ago - I don't think I could have gone through x or y or z without knowing I write or phone these two people.

Lessons shared and learned.

Edgar,

I think you are counting on people being as understanding as you feel you would.

In reality, doing something like this has meant that the moderators then had to join an impromptu debate where their action is second guessed and they have to either ignore the criticism and further the impression some will always have of their actions being arbitrary or defend it.

Defending it is inevitably a time consuming affair that would make the site functions inviable. It's tantamount to increasing the cooks by a measure of anyone who decided they have an opinion on the matter, often without the perspective and information that the decisions were made with.

And frequently it's just no fair to some to divulge things merely because of the curiosity of others.

A long time ago, a moderator action was announced in precisely such fashion as you suggest. The member in question took great offense to the announcement, much more so than with the moderator action. And all things considered, I think it would have been best to respect that person's wishes. He had no desire for the action taken against him to be known to anyone but himself and within the context of what occured it was really not anyone else's business. The impromptu debate about whether it was justified began, with the moderators avoiding comment due to the fact that it would require further bad-mouthing of the individual. And of course the more abitious (or perhaps bored ;-) ) members decided to campaign against the moderators' decision.

I think what this all boils down to is a notion that the site should be a democracy down to the last detail of every decision, and for many reasons this is not viable here for the same reasons that no real-life democratic country does so.

At it's essense is the simple concept of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Even in democratic countries the ones tasked to decisions is invariably reduced for the majority of the decisions because of the inherent complexities of involving a greater number of people.

But this site is no country, it's not public domain for example, I've spent too much time and money on Able2Know to accept the idea of, say, having a vote to change it's owner.

It's also not possible to ensure one man one vote without data collection becoming much more invasive for members (like requireing a unique verifiable number like social security number or a credit card).

It's also not a place anyone has to live, and as such you won't find an inherent interest in the site's interests on the part of the constituency.

For one such example, if the rules on spam were to bevoted on unmitigated spamming could well be the victoious policy. There's simply many more people on the internet who would be intrested in being able to spam A2K than there are Able2Know members who might not appreciate it.

I realize that nobody is really caling for a vote, exactly, on what is done and how things are done. But what some of the "solutions" proposed constitute are steps in that direction that would make the moderators' jobs untenable with the current structures.

An easy example of why this is not a democracy is the fact that there is no taxes and that the criteria for being eligible to use the site is as open as possible. It's an odd situation in which those who use a free service would like a say in the way it's delivered to them.

We've explained time and time again that explaining and transparency, while desireable to members, represents the greatest potential for increasing the work load. Most members will not ever get it but this is a simple limitation. What the suggestions amount to is tantamount to a seuggestion that site staff provide better customer service without recognition that said service comes at a cost in resources and cost in the more limited resource we have (human resources, trustworthy people willing to devote time to maintain the standards of the site for free).

Nothing is so easy as for the man who doesn't have to do it himself, and because of this the mods will always see a desire that they provide members with more "customer service" (really only an analogy, as this is not a business/consumer relationship), and due to the fact that the concerns we repeatedy mention are not excures but real and limiting factors the site has to deal with the mods will invariably have to disappoint in this regard.

In this, those who maintain this site know we can't please everyone. Probably not even th majority.

And as frustrating as that is to many of the site staff, who are not mere workers here but also participating members of the community, they can but do their best to uphold the standards they set out to uphold and maintain the site for what it was intended to be.

To maintain the viablity and vision of the site, moderators can only do thier best. And whether or not people will understand it or agree with it, doing their best in this regard means not bowing to the pressure to increase the cooks (or even the advisors, or those "in the know") to the nth degree.

It's not done because we fancy a "need to know" basis, but because of the limitations I outlined above to the best of my current ability.

replying here to those who mentioned moi - tis I posting. I can tell those asking about sumac that she is elsewhere and has things going on that are taking her time from online posting. Hiama also is elsewhere, alive and well. <cobalt slips off, back to lurking>

sumac isn't only "elsehwere" but has posted today a couple of times and before as well :wink:

My litany was more a wish list than any kind of insistance. Regardless of the reasons you give, I will always feel this way. I will also drop the subject, because I know this is as far as it can go.

Thanks, cobalt. Glad that hiama and sumac are all right.

'nuff said on this subject. I've got other rails to de-thread and people to misplace.

Drom, you're in my heart...perhaps some day....

What does Hiama MEAN by being "elsewhere"!!!!!

I miss him!

Thats the point though, isnt it - once someone is banned, you cant PM them anymore to exchange email adresses - they're gone, and they dont have any way to contact you anymore either. Whats the alternative - give out my email adress now to anyone who I might want to stay in touch with in case they ever do get banned? That could be dozens of people - and I'm not quite ready for that, either, for obvious reasons.

It's good to hear that so many other members have been feeling the same kind of unease, which sits awkwardly with the loyalty and respect we all have for the moderators. Good to at least see it talked about.