matt said:

Matt i do respect you for stepping to the plate and at least attepmting to answer the questions. Mine have been answered for the most part and i understand the moderation position a little more clearly. I think orgers should be able to have an open dialog for all to see so that they may also get their questions answered and understand better what is acceptable and what is not. Again thank you for at least giving a reply and answering my questions.

CtheUncanny said:

thats the exact reason why i think discussion or moderation action should be permited..and *not* in private..cause locking or deleting a thread sure as hell aint done in private..

i do think ben's abscense in the forums has created a certain disconnect from this specific issue..if he cant relate to the frustration that some of the guests to his wonderful site experience...how can he understand why people are asking for a change...

and we all know this isnt a democracy..but we are all bringing up the issue for a reason...and i dont ever get moderated..but i miss the people's perspectives that are no longer here..and since i wasnt close to them i dont know how to email them...

like that imnotjustsaying guy... where is he?

So Aaron is banned from the site, not just deactivated?

If he is banned, is it due to MD7's charges of "racism", or being tired of dealing with his continued strikes/deactivations?
[This message was edited Tue Jan 27 17:42:44 PST 2004 by AnotherLoverToo]

Teacher said:

"It's just a website folks"

My head is spinning.

It seems to me that it's absolutely true that popular and long-time users are given more freedom than a newbie would if they popped in and started flaming. Which is precicely why Aaron was allowed to hang around for so long, despite the fact that he rarely contributed anything outside of the snotty comments or outright flames. He was/is popular. Much like your average schoolyard bully, surrounded by cowards who might not be willing to be that nasty themselves, but who are amused by his balls.

This place would go to shit without moderation. Ian mostly did a fine job, Matt mostly does a fine job, and Dansa seems to be doing well so far. But you know what? She'll piss y'all off in time too, as soon as she locks your thread or deactivates one of your friends. If I have any complaint about her, it's that I think the mods ought to have each others backs, and she hasn't been so great about that. But hey, that's not required, I suppose.

This community is what it is because of the balance that has been struck between freedom and moderation. I'm afraid that the collective whining around here is going to either cause Ben to throw his hands up in the air and throw us all to the alt.music.prince wolves, or enlist a huge crew of moderators to knock down anything that doesn't strictly adhere to the letter of the rules.

Here's my suggestion: everybody shut up and go back to your forums.

AnotherLoverToo said:

He was deactivated before all those posts against me, many here seem to have missed that. He was just banging a few more nails in his coffin by that stage.

matt said:

My question actually was to matt, because he uses the word "banned" rather than deactivated in this post (perhaps others).

Is Aaron banned or deactivated, or is it unclear what will happen?

MelissaC said:

I don't think that anyone can really make a comment like that without knowing the whole story. It seems to me that it's less of her not having matt's back and more of her not really having a say in some of the moderation decisions that were made. Either way, it's only fair to give the girl some leeway. It does kinda seem like matt popped out of nowhere and started loicking threads and deactivating people. I know that he's always been heavily involved with this site and just because he's more visible now doesn't mean that he wasn't always here in some form or another but when someone becomes more visible, it can throw things off.

That being said, I am happy to see his name around the site more even if I'm not always happy about the decisions he makes.

jessyMD32781 said:

matt, love the guy..but we all gotta admit once he starts moderating moderation all of a sudden becomes a hot topic around here... not judging when i say this..its just the truth..

could it be that ian and dansa who take active parts within the community gain a different perspective about moderation?

sosgemini said:

It could be. It also could be because the issues that got matt back into the community had to do with his private life. Ian and Dansa keep their private lives away from this site and i think that's what keeps them from making biased moderation decisions, where matt hasn't really done that and sometimes it shows. It's hard to be very open about personal issues and then try to be objective when people roll their eyes at them. I think after a bit things will calm down and all these moderation issues will decrease.

AnotherLoverToo said:

I've been using "banned" and "deactivated" interchangeably... our site software describes the status of a deactivated user as "banned."

As for whether Aaron will stay on banned status, I don't know. That's a decision that should be made by the .org staff as a whole (or Ben). But for the time being, I'm not going to reactivate Aaron because when I attempted to resolve things with him privately, he made it clear that he wasn't willing to abide by our rules.

Regarding your second question, Aaron's deactivation was prompted by his long-term pattern of behavior, not any one incident. He's had a second chance, a third chance, etc., and eventually it gets to the point where enough is enough.

MelissaC said:[quote]It seems to me that it's absolutely true that popular and long-time users are given more freedom than a newbie would if they popped in and started flaming. Which is precicely why Aaron was allowed to hang around for so long, despite the fact that he rarely contributed anything outside of the snotty comments or outright flames. He was/is popular. Much like your average schoolyard bully, surrounded by cowards who might not be willing to be that nasty themselves, but who are amused by his balls.

What do you contribute? I am not Aarons biggest fan, but he had his niche on the org that did serve a benefit. What a person contributes to a community isn't for just one person to decide.

This place would go to shit without moderation. Ian mostly did a fine job, Matt mostly does a fine job, and Dansa seems to be doing well so far. But you know what? She'll piss y'all off in time too, as soon as she locks your thread or deactivates one of your friends. If I have any complaint about her, it's that I think the mods ought to have each others backs, and she hasn't been so great about that. But hey, that's not required, I suppose.

:LOL: You know what Matt is really famous for? Locking Shauslers poetry thread(that was the start of the GD shutdown). Dansa seems to be more patient with the orgers
and will ask the orger to talk to her before she drops the boom. Matt just pops out of nowhere and locks and bans shit. No explaination or anything. Some times he doesn't even know the background of what may have caused the situation nor does he seem to care. As far as having another mods back, what if she thinks he was wrong? Oh i get it, this should be a buddy system like the police.
Where you can do something wrong and get away with it because you have the others with authority to back you up.

This community is what it is because of the balance that has been struck between freedom and moderation. I'm afraid that the collective whining around here is going to either cause Ben to throw his hands up in the air and throw us all to the alt.music.prince wolves, or enlist a huge crew of moderators to knock down anything that doesn't strictly adhere to the letter of the rules.

Here's my suggestion: everybody shut up and go back to your forums.

Here is my suggestion: Maybe Matt should take notes from Dansa. The org seems to run fine 90 percent of the time. The real big blowups usually involve a misunderstanding between a moderator and an orger.


Get me banned or at least heavily watched edit
[This message was edited Sun Feb 1 13:44:40 PST 2004 by CtheUncanny]

CtheUncanny said:[quote]

MelissaC said:

Notice she comes back when someone is deactivated etc?

CtheUncanny said:

good suggestion. i do like her nonaggressive approach.

jessyMD32781 said:

But that would involve listening to somebody else though. Unlikely

Teacher said:

good points from all three of you...

i think there are some people here who think i like telling others what to do or that i dislike moderators which isnt the case..like ive said a million times, ive never had problems with the moderators on this site...but i see many get frustrated and leave and nothing changes and people are sorta intimidated into *not* talking about moderation...

i just want this place to be fun for all...unlike others who seem to enjoy being nasty and bitter..i bring you love



where's that bullshit meter?




lovedit!!
[This message was edited Mon Feb 2 16:29:34 PST 2004 by sosgemini]

CtheUncanny said:

I think he was already on to something

KoolAid said:

I'll say.