The Appleman : The Return of the Jedi (part 3)

[Suzy]

Guys, I have a message from Olivia.

 

Olivia says:

"just wanted to clarify things : none of my posts have been deleted, i have been banned for saying goodBye into kata's thread (that they closed, didn't event bother to delete it, is it like a trophy or something ?) - i wasn't part of the PMs things they talked about - i don't know about cynthia if it's just because she said goodBye or if she sent some PMs"

the reason given was "denigrating the forum"... i dare them to find a post where i do that"

 

 

Now I am even more perplexed. What was the point of the ban?

 

Message from Kata:

 

I PMed with Niki27 yesterday, trying to explain my point of view. I do not know if she was mortally offended by that, but there was no reason to be so anyway. As far as I know, none of my posts have been deleted. I do not know which series of events they refer to as the reason for the ban, it does not exactly make sense to me. If I was banned for saying I am leaving, then so be it, but to keep on implying both in public and in PMs to my friends that I have done something terrible behind the scenes is just not on. Either tell the whole forum what exactly it is that you find justifies this treatment, or stop saying anything at all. I have not done anything extremely offensive as far as I know, I simply just got fed up with people being extremely patronizing and telling me I have to be grateful for having my heart torn out and stepped upon. That backstage party is one of the worst experiences I have ever had and I left the room crying, I do not think anyone is in the position to tell me I have to be grateful for having the opportunity of that.

Kata

 

I don't understand why...since we know dcdeb, lollipop_monkey, and nico collard weren't here ... does that mean the decision to make that drastic move was only made by a couple of mods? They keep using the term "we" like it was a decision by a whole group.

[Niki27]

Message from Kata:

 

I PMed with Niki27 yesterday, trying to explain my point of view. I do not know if she was mortally offended by that, but there was no reason to be so anyway. As far as I know, none of my posts have been deleted. I do not know which series of events they refer to as the reason for the ban, it does not exactly make sense to me. If I was banned for saying I am leaving, then so be it, but to keep on implying both in public and in PMs to my friends that I have done something terrible behind the scenes is just not on. Either tell the whole forum what exactly it is that you find justifies this treatment, or stop saying anything at all. I have not done anything extremely offensive as far as I know, I simply just got fed up with people being extremely patronizing and telling me I have to be grateful for having my heart torn out and stepped upon. That backstage party is one of the worst experiences I have ever had and I left the room crying, I do not think anyone is in the position to tell me I have to be grateful for having the opportunity of that.

Kata

 

I wasn't offended. I wasn't patronizing, i just don't see why I would moan along with her. I know it was hard for Kata, I would never try to say it wasn't. But many members were offended by her behaviour and felt attacked by her. I told her so. She said she didn't care... fair enough. Many others did.

Mods are on the side of the majority, not one or 2 people, whatever our personal opinions are.

We act as a team and even when some people are not logged in, we have ways to communicate.

I have nothing more to say.

[REBEKA]

I don't even have enough time or wit to keep up with one identity. How do they do it?

 

I was wondering the same. Wow Cynthia has/had quite a few profiles, well my admiration.. and astonishment.

[soangel]

G'night! Sweet dreams. Hopefully the next time you post on the MFC that it will be the OFFICIAL site...

*Has posted this morning*

 

*checks status*

 

Nlope not offical

 

*cue whining that it is now 10 hours and 42 minutes into our monday*

[JackViolet]

Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa.

 

I know it was hard for Kata, I would never try to say it wasn't. But many members were offended by her behaviour and felt attacked by her. I told her so. She said she didn't care... fair enough. Many others did.

Mods are on the side of the majority, not one or 2 people, whatever our personal opinions are.

 

This is the part I still don't get--people were offended by Kata's what? By her saying she had a terrible time? By saying that other people (without naming anyone!) ruined it for her?

 

Well it was true! It sucks if that isn't a sunshiney fact, but we know that yes, she didn't even get a chance to get within speaking distance of Mika due to some people's behavior. If that somehow makes others feel bad, well that's also too bad! They can tell her how she's making them feel in return, if they want, but why would be she banned due to stating her feelings?

 

Do we ban Sariflor now because the fact that she called our attention to how the thread made her feel guilty probably makes Christine and babs feel bad? If the logic that banned Kata holds true, you'd have to, wouldn't you--as long as Christine and Babs PMed you to complain about it?

 

And since WHEN are mods on the side of majority? I thought they were on the side of "the right." If Kata's banned for making people feel bad by truthfully stating what she felt (without resorting to personal attacks or bigotry), then anyone and everyone who ever complained about pushy people behind them ruining shows for them should also be banned, because that's the same thing.

 

I said over and over again in the old DC thread that the girls behind me ruined the whole concert because I felt I had to fight just to keep my place, and they shoved me and pulled at my hair, and grabbed at Mika without any respect for his space, etc. If any people who happened to stand near me started posting that I was making them feel bad and guilty for having a good time at the concert, would I have been banned?

 

Also, I saw somebody complain in the recent threads about a rude person in the queue who pushed them, and directly call out that person, saying that if they're on the forums, they should know what a b*tch they are. Why isn't THAT person banned?

 

Why aren't any of the people who made xenophobic remarks banned--is saying that other people ruined a party for you worse than xenophobia? Or is it just that not enough foreigners PMed complaining about how they were offended?

 

Why isn't the person who called Aurelien a jerk who bossed her around in the queue with the numbers banned? Didn't that make Aurelien feel bad and guilty?

 

Or the new user who said that the MFC people were responsible for her terrible experience, where no-one explained the numbers to her and she stood unmoving in line for 7 hours only to be pushed to the back when numbered people took their spots? I'm sure that made some people feel bad; she was really upset about it.

 

 

And I'm still confused about this "majority" thing. If mods DO go by siding with the majority rather than an independent sense of right, how is this determined? If the "majority" decides that insulting a particular group is all right and in fact defending them is controversial and sh*t-stirring, do we condone the insults and ban those who try to defend those people?

 

How was the "majority" determined in Kata's case, anyway? Was there a percentage of people who were upset by Kata's posts vs those who supported her? If we ran a poll to see who else may support her, could we get her ban reversed and maybe even have somebody else banned? What are the numbers we're working with? What number is the "many" who felt attacked by her?

 

On the opposite side of those who feel attacked and offended by the fact that Kata was not allowed to express herself and stay, we have:

 

Yop

Cynthia

Me

Christine

Babs

Scut

Haeschen

Suzy

possibly Jennie

possibly Jemmalee

possibly anyone else who also felt angry and hurt at the party, such as scg, xBillybrownx, etc

possibly anyone else posting on the apple thread in support

 

If we get more names and outnumber the "many," what then? Some of these people have also decided that what happened upsets them enough that they need to take a break. They just haven't PMed the mods to complain about it.

 

Now I am even more perplexed. What was the point of the ban?

 

As far as I can tell, it was because Kata and Yop were "causing drama." Which I did not know was reason to be banned.

 

--Jack

[lollipop_monkey]

If mods DO go by siding with the majority rather than an independent sense of right, how is this determined? If the "majority" decides that insulting a particular group is all right and in fact defending them is controversial ad sh*t-stirring, do we condone the insults and ban those who try to defend those people?

 

Moderation IS carried out here based on what's right, - and by "right" I mean what the seven of us in moderation roles feel is right (not always an easy thing to determine).

 

Those who were banned were banned due to a pattern of behaviour, not due to any single post.

 

Going forward, I'll ask that questions about who was banned and why (in this particular case) be directed to Diana. As she was directly involved, she's better equipped to answer questions than those of us who were filled in after the fact.

 

If anyone speaks to Diana and doesn't get a satisfactory answer, the next step is to talk to dcdeb, who is essentially the "leader" of the moderation team. Failing that, you can bring up your questions or concerns with Freddiesdouble.

 

I'm a big fan of open, two-way communication - and if that makes me a care bear, so be it. I want people to feel they understand the path the moderation team takes to make decisions, even if they don't agree with the end result.

[Pam Travers]

 

On the opposite side of those who feel attacked and offended by the fact that Kata was not allowed to express herself and stay, we have:

 

Yop

Cynthia

Me

Christine

Babs

Scut

Haeschen

Suzy

possibly Jennie

possibly Jemmalee

possibly anyone else who also felt angry and hurt at the party, such as scg, xBillybrownx, etc

possibly anyone else posting on the apple thread in support

 

If we get more names and outnumber the "many," what then?

 

 

--Jack

 

what then? i'm afraid the answer will be "nothing then..."

and you can add my name to the list, not that I know or care about all those people but i believe in fighting for right causes

 

I could write 567889pages about all this but it would be totally vain...so just one thing;only people like you should be allowed to be moderators jack, people who are able to stay neutral, no one else...not people who ban for personal reasons, personal dislikes etc.

 

the reasons you've been given to xplain the banning of those members dont make any sense since if those were the right reasons, then many other members should have been banned too and it is obviously not the case...

 

I suggest 3 things

 

- ban the banning

or - neutral moderators

or - robots without any feelings, moods, dislikes or preferences as moderators

[kjoshi]

Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa.

 

 

 

This is the part I still don't get--people were offended by Kata's what? By her saying she had a terrible time? By saying that other people (without naming anyone!) ruined it for her?

 

Well it was true! It sucks if that isn't a sunshiney fact, but we know that yes, she didn't even get a chance to get within speaking distance of Mika due to some people's behavior. If that somehow makes others feel bad, well that's also too bad! They can tell her how she's making them feel in return, if they want, but why would be she banned due to stating her feelings?

 

Do we ban Sariflor now because the fact that she called our attention to how the thread made her feel guilty probably makes Christine and babs feel bad? If the logic that banned Kata holds true, you'd have to, wouldn't you--as long as Christine and Babs PMed you to complain about it?

 

And since WHEN are mods on the side of majority? I thought they were on the side of "the right." If Kata's banned for making people feel bad by truthfully stating what she felt (without resorting to personal attacks or bigotry), then anyone and everyone who ever complained about pushy people behind them ruining shows for them should also be banned, because that's the same thing.

 

I said over and over again in the old DC thread that the girls behind me ruined the whole concert because I felt I had to fight just to keep my place, and they shoved me and pulled at my hair, and grabbed at Mika without any respect for his space, etc. If any people who happened to stand near me started posting that I was making them feel bad and guilty for having a good time at the concert, would I have been banned?

 

Also, I saw somebody complain in the recent threads about a rude person in the queue who pushed them, and directly call out that person, saying that if they're on the forums, they should know what a b*tch they are. Why isn't THAT person banned?

 

Why aren't any of the people who made xenophobic remarks banned--is saying that other people ruined a party for you worse than xenophobia? Or is it just that not enough foreigners PMed complaining about how they were offended?

 

Why isn't the person who called Aurelien a jerk who bossed her around in the queue with the numbers banned? Didn't that make Aurelien feel bad and guilty?

 

Or the new user who said that the MFC people were responsible for her terrible experience, where no-one explained the numbers to her and she stood unmoving in line for 7 hours only to be pushed to the back when numbered people took their spots? I'm sure that made some people feel bad; she was really upset about it.

 

 

And I'm still confused about this "majority" thing. If mods DO go by siding with the majority rather than an independent sense of right, how is this determined? If the "majority" decides that insulting a particular group is all right and in fact defending them is controversial and sh*t-stirring, do we condone the insults and ban those who try to defend those people?

 

How was the "majority" determined in Kata's case, anyway? Was there a percentage of people who were upset by Kata's posts vs those who supported her? If we ran a poll to see who else may support her, could we get her ban reversed and maybe even have somebody else banned? What are the numbers we're working with? What number is the "many" who felt attacked by her?

 

On the opposite side of those who feel attacked and offended by the fact that Kata was not allowed to express herself and stay, we have:

 

Yop

Cynthia

Me

Christine

Babs

Scut

Haeschen

Suzy

possibly Jennie

possibly Jemmalee

possibly anyone else who also felt angry and hurt at the party, such as scg, xBillybrownx, etc

possibly anyone else posting on the apple thread in support

 

If we get more names and outnumber the "many," what then? Some of these people have also decided that what happened upsets them enough that they need to take a break. They just haven't PMed the mods to complain about it.

 

 

 

As far as I can tell, it was because Kata and Yop were "causing drama." Which I did not know was reason to be banned.

 

--Jack

 

 

AAANd what about those people who were discriminating against other countries. I thought that was the absurd comments ever said. I don't think derogatory statements against nationalities should be tolerable at all

[Suzy]

and by "right" I mean what the seven of us in moderation roles feel is right (not always an easy thing to determine).

 

Those who were banned were banned due to a pattern of behaviour, not due to any single post.

 

Going forward, I'll ask that questions about who was banned and why (in this particular case) be directed to Diana. As she was directly involved, she's better equipped to answer questions than those of us who were filled in after the fact.

 

 

So if you and the rest of the mod team that were not here were "filled in after the fact", then the rest of the forum has to sit back and "trust" that the story is not one-sided, and presented by a mod who was never elected democratically by any of the members.

 

Regarding "pattern of behaviour" - I know that Kata and Yop had a way of expressing opinions that were not so popular, and with sarcastic humour, (however, still not, IMO, drastic enough to warrant banning). Now Cynthia Mulat, on the other hand - I can't remember a single post that could be included in a pattern. Her last post, yes, I admit, was defaming the forum - but could that one, single post not have instead been given a warning?

What about the time she posted 18 pages of her "disappointment" in meeting Mika last summer when she was given the job of coordinating things backstage in NYC? Was she warned then of possibily putting Mika in a bad light?

 

I am thrilled that this forum is becoming Official, and I care about it a lot. I, along with Kata, babs, Yop, Christine and many others have monetarily donated to this place. Scut, Jack, Christine, and Yop (along with lollipop_monkey too) have greatly contributed their time and hard work to the FAQ's. As babspanky mentioned earlier - Kata is the biggest advocate for fairness. I remember how upset she was with me last year for posting something that presented a one-sided view of Mika's sexuality. She left a bad taste in my mouth for the longest time. But as I grew to understand her and allowed myself to be open to seeing her perspective, even though I didn't always agree - her sarcastic humour, her honesty, won me over (especially when I finally met her in person, in London, last December). And I haven't even mentioned the deeds that babspanky has done behind the scenes for many MFCers and the analytic/essay-like, writing contributions and viewpoints of Christine, Scut and Jack. I have grown tremendously over this last year, because I have allowed myself to see other sides of everything.

I hardly thought I fit in this thread at all, because I'm often too giddy and excited and positive and I do sometimes blow a lot of unwanted sunshine around here.

 

I suppose what I'm trying to convey here, is that although the "Apples" seem to be a "clique" that may annoy some people at times, you can't just dismiss the contributions that they have brought to this forum. I know this banning has nothing to do with the whole group of apples who post on this thread - but I would hope more people can trust our version of Kata, Yop and Cynthia Mulat too. This should count for something.

[JackViolet]

I could write 567889pages about all this but it would be totally vain...so just one thing;only people like you should be allowed to be moderators jack, people who are able to stay neutral, no one else...not people who ban for personal reasons, personal dislikes etc.

 

Thanks Pam, but I think as that post above showed, I'm not exactly always able to stay neutral... I got rather emotional and impassioned there, and in truth am a bit ashamed of how hot-headed the tone was.

 

Mana, I really appreciate your viewpoint and how you say that you want people to understand how the mods make decisions... and I really truly do understand how hard it is to be the cops/mods. I would just like to suggest that when the reason for baning is not immediately obvious on the forums (ie, a racist or disrespectful post or a clear violation of rules), maybe a short explanation of why a user was banned would be helpful when the ban is announced. Otherwise, of course people are going to be somewhat confused and upset. Not giving people information but expecting them to act as though they HAVE that information doesn't tend to work out well.

 

(I'm not saying that's what the mods have been doing, but that's what the situation results in, you know?

 

--Jack

[kjoshi]

I hardly thought I fit in this thread at all, because I'm often too giddy and excited and positive and I do sometimes blow a lot of unwanted sunshine around here.

 

I suppose what I'm trying to convey here, is that although the "Apples" seem to be a "clique" that may annoy some people at times, you can't just dismiss the contributions that they have brought to this forum. I know this banning has nothing to do with the whole group of apples who post on this thread - but I would hope more people can trust our version of Kata, Yop and Cynthia Mulat too. This should count for something.

 

I hardly call the apples a "clique" You girls are all good friends. I know I post here sometimes without hesitation or thinking that I'm disturbing anything.

 

Thanks Pam, but I think as that post above showed, I'm not exactly always able to stay neutral... I got rather emotional and impassioned there, and in truth am a bit ashamed of how hot-headed the tone was.

 

Mana, I really appreciate your viewpoint and how you say that you want people to understand how the mods make decisions... and I really truly do understand how hard it is to be the cops/mods. I would just like to suggest that when the reason for baning is not immediately obvious on the forums (ie, a racist or disrespectful post or a clear violation of rules), maybe a short explanation of why a user was banned would be helpful when the ban is announced. Otherwise, of course people are going to be somewhat confused and upset. Not giving people information but expecting them to act as though they HAVE that information doesn't tend to work out well.

 

(I'm not saying that's what the mods have been doing, but that's what the situation results in, you know?

 

--Jack

 

Yeah I agree, I can also understand that it can be super hard to play this role on the forum. It's seems that someone will always be upset and that you can't make everyone happy, but I agree with jack in that maybe it won't create such big waves if there were explanations. Cause we are all friends here and we care for each other

[JackViolet]

I hardly call the apples a "clique" You girls are all good friends. I know I post here sometimes without hesitation or thinking that I'm disturbing anything.

 

Well, we're a clique in the sense of being a kind of group, but I also think we're welcoming enough of other people. I definitely don't think you're "disturbing" anything when you post here... it's more like we have the regulars here who post a lot, and then you and soangel and others drop by sometimes and we're happy to see you.

 

And hey, in fact, Suzy, me, Scut and Christine are in fact newer additions to the apples.

 

Actually, it's a shame that most of the original apples don't even post here much anymore...

 

--Jack

[Suzy]

Otherwise, of course people are going to be somewhat confused and upset. Not giving people information but expecting them to act as though they HAVE that information doesn't tend to work out well.

--Jack

 

I actually haven't received as many PMs as I have in these last 2 days. There are many members here who are perplexed and have PMed me for an explanation that I can't seem to provide.

[Pam Travers]

Thanks Pam, but I think as that post above showed, I'm not exactly always able to stay neutral... I got rather emotional and impassioned there, and in truth am a bit ashamed of how hot-headed the tone was.

 

 

--Jack

 

 

once again you prove that you can question yourself, something that many people can't do and self questioning is the most important thing...

 

it's a shame you're not a moderator but maybe you wouldnt be interested in being one anyway...

 

and I want everyone to know that you and I are not friends= I'm being totally objective.

 

lol,suzy...it's the first time that i read something from you so ....cant find the word but:thumb_yello:

[kjoshi]

Well, we're a clique in the sense of being a kind of group, but I also think we're welcoming enough of other people. I definitely don't think you're "disturbing" anything when you post here... it's more like we have the regulars here who post a lot, and then you and soangel and others drop by sometimes and we're happy to see you.

 

And hey, in fact, Suzy, me, Scut and Christine are in fact newer additions to the apples.

 

Actually, it's a shame that most of the original apples don't even post here much anymore...

 

--Jack

 

Yeah I guess you're right about that. The reason I said that was because the word "clique" has a negative connotation for me because of high school

 

It really is too bad that the first apples don't post here. I feel like there are many people who used to post don't post as much anymore. I guess some people just get over it all and move on.

Even I wish I wasn't on here at times because I should be doing more school work but it's so freaking addicting

 

 

P.S I don't even know what happened with people banned. I just found out, all I know is what I read in the After Party thread. I don't really need any details but I just wanted to know are they banned forever???!

 

Or am i not allowed to even bring it up

[Kelzy]

For your information, girls:

 

http://www.mikafanclub.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1219007&postcount=38

 

 

I'm shocked that this has been posted. What happened to member privacy rules? Was it a mod decision to publicise the fact Cynthia had numerous accounts? How does Cynthia feel about this? Did anyone ask her? Do her feelings count for anything? Is posting her other MFC accounts relevant to why she was banned? And if she returns, will this make her feel victimized? Is public outing the path MFC chooses now?

 

I'd like to note that my niece logs into her MFC account more often when she is at my place. So if a mod should ever feel like banning me willy-nilly, or because I expressed my anger regarding the fact Australia still hasn't had a tour, yet the french fans seem to be rolling in Mika's sweat, or something to that effect,, I do hope they aren't foolish enough to ban my niece also based on her sharing my IP address.

[Pam Travers]

Well, we're a clique in the sense of being a kind of group, but I also think we're welcoming enough of other people. I definitely don't think you're "disturbing" anything when you post here... it's more like we have the regulars here who post a lot, and then you and soangel and others drop by sometimes and we're happy to see you.

 

And hey, in fact, Suzy, me, Scut and Christine are in fact newer additions to the apples.

 

Actually, it's a shame that most of the original apples don't even post here much anymore...

 

--Jack

 

yes, it's true you are a clique, so what?? I just want to say that i'm not a part of that clique but that i am totally MORE THAN OK about groups and stuff, it's only natural, and that's what everybody else should think... and this is also true that you (jack) are welcoming people very friendly even those who are not a part of it, so I really , really personally cant see the problem

[Pam Travers]

I'm shocked that this has been posted. What happened to member privacy rules? Was it a mod decision to publicise the fact Cynthia had numerous accounts? How does Cynthia feel about this? Did anyone ask her? Do her feelings count for anything? Is posting her other MFC accounts relevant to why she was banned? And if she returns, will this make her feel victimized? Is public outing the path MFC chooses now?

 

 

dont you understand that there is NO privacy rules (nothing, nada , niente baby!) for the members here...how does she feel? probably very bad and powerless!! great lines.

[rilo8913]

I'm shocked that this has been posted. What happened to member privacy rules? Was it a mod decision to publicise the fact Cynthia had numerous accounts? How does Cynthia feel about this? Did anyone ask her? Do her feelings count for anything? Is posting her other MFC accounts relevant to why she was banned? And if she returns, will this make her feel victimized? Is public outing the path MFC chooses now?

 

I agree... especially in light of the fact that the mods have stated numerous times that the situation is being kept private and is supposed to only be discussed further through PMs. It just doesn't add up.

 

I don't think public humiliation should be part of any sort of punishment for whatever deed occurred (which would be the only result of this particular "informative" post, unless Cynthia specifically wished to disclose that those IDs were hers), especially since those other IDs didn't appear to play a part in the issue at hand whatsoever. Quietly banning those IDs too would've been sufficient, I believe... that is, if any banning were necessary at all.

[PhotoJenic]

I'm shocked that this has been posted. What happened to member privacy rules? Was it a mod decision to publicise the fact Cynthia had numerous accounts? How does Cynthia feel about this? Did anyone ask her? Do her feelings count for anything? Is posting her other MFC accounts relevant to why she was banned? And if she returns, will this make her feel victimized? Is public outing the path MFC chooses now?

 

I'd like to note that my niece logs into her MFC account more often when she is at my place. So if a mod should ever feel like banning me willy-nilly, or because I expressed my anger regarding the fact Australia still hasn't had a tour, yet the french fans seem to be rolling in Mika's sweat, or something to that effect,, I do hope they aren't foolish enough to ban my niece also based on her sharing my IP address.

 

Wow Kelz. I don't think anyone could have said it better. When I came across the post today I wondered how Cynthia would feel knowing that her other ids had been outed and banned. Maybe she used those other ids for PM space? I don't think I've seen those names post around here before so maybe I just missed it I don't know.

 

I agree... especially in light of the fact that the mods have stated numerous times that the situation is being kept private and is supposed to only be discussed further through PMs. It just doesn't add up.

 

I don't think public humiliation should be part of any sort of punishment for whatever deed occurred (which would be the only result of this particular "informative" post, unless Cynthia specifically wished to disclose that those IDs were hers), especially since those other IDs didn't appear to play a part in the issue at hand whatsoever. Quietly banning those IDs too would've been sufficient, I believe... that is, if any banning were necessary at all.

 

Agreed. I think the other ids should have been just kept quiet and maybe they were registered on the same IP address as hers, like maybe they all registered some place public? It's not entirely impossible. I'm at a college where I'm assuming the IP address is the same for everyone and I think I registered here at college... actually yeah I'm sure I did because I don't make it home that often and it was only 8ish days after my first gig when I was living on campus.

[lollipop_monkey]

So if you and the rest of the mod team that were not here were "filled in after the fact", then the rest of the forum has to sit back and "trust" that the story is not one-sided, and presented by a mod who was never elected democratically by any of the members.

 

It's not a case of any one mod making decisions. Diana, Niki27 and Queenie were all online when this situation came to light, and decisions were made by those three, in alignment with guidelines we all abide by. That's as fair as it can be, especially when considering that three moderators (or fewer) is all many forums have.

 

I noticed you used the term "elected democratically". I just wanted to clarify that there's no effective way to have members vote for moderators. That would lead to a popularity contest, where people voted for members they've met in person, or members they happen to talk to a lot online - rather than choosing who may be the "best" person for the job. At this point, existing moderators discuss who (among interested parties) should join the moderation team, based on their knowledge of what the role involves. My perspective is that it's as fair as is practical.

 

I suppose what I'm trying to convey here, is that although the "Apples" seem to be a "clique" that may annoy some people at times, you can't just dismiss the contributions that they have brought to this forum. I know this banning has nothing to do with the whole group of apples who post on this thread - but I would hope more people can trust our version of Kata, Yop and Cynthia Mulat too. This should count for something.

 

I'm a bit confused by this, honestly. Who is dismissing the contributions brought to this forum? I'll be the first to say that many of the most down-to-earth, intellectual conversations to take place on this forum have happened either in this thread, or by "Apples" in other threads. You guys are often a nice balance between the rest of us starry-eyed dreamers who can't fathom that Mika is - gasp! - just a flesh and blood person.

 

The fact that two regular "Apples" were banned is a coincidence - in no way some sort of half-baked moderator vendetta toward you guys as a group.

 

I would just like to suggest that when the reason for baning is not immediately obvious on the forums (ie, a racist or disrespectful post or a clear violation of rules), maybe a short explanation of why a user was banned would be helpful when the ban is announced. Otherwise, of course people are going to be somewhat confused and upset.

 

So you'd like some sort of moderator statement clearly explaining why so-and-so has received a ban in each case?

 

On one hand, I understand that, and will ensure the moderator team has a chance to discuss this. For one, it's hard for people to avoid breaking the "rules" if they feel it's unclear exactly what the "rules" are. Secondly, I understand people feeling perplexed when a longtime member of the community has been banned (if only temporarily) for seemingly vague reasons.

 

The flip side is privacy. It would be against the grain of how we currently do things if we were to write something like "Suzy is banned for a week because she PM'd Christine and called her a slutty rotten apple. She then posted a thread about how she actually knows Mika's second cousin who told her that Mika thinks all MFCers are a bunch of douchebags".

 

In fact, this post below touches on that issue. If we make decisions that anyone sees as a breach of privacy, people get very defensive. I like to think we work within fairly moral privacy boundaries, but then we see posts like this:

 

dont you understand that there is NO privacy rules (nothing, nada , niente baby!) for the members here...how does she feel? probably very bad and powerless!!

 

That said, I'm getting the feeling that some people feel us moderators are operating behind some shroud of secrecy, and I'll make sure that the moderation team does discuss that.

[Kelzy]

Mana,

I know you all try your hardest to do what's right for the forum. I do respect what you do here. I was just shocked that Cynthia's other accounts were posted. I felt that informing us of these accounts was completely irrelevant to the banning of her more used account that we all know her by. I do believe there is such a thing as member privacy on the MFC. I just felt it wasn't considered in this case. We're all human, and we all make mistakes, but unfortunately, that was a biggie that needed to be addressed. Nothing personal towards Niki or Diana, but I would be spitting blood if it was me who was on the receiving end.

[Scut Monkey]

Mods are on the side of the majority, not one or 2 people, whatever our personal opinions are.

Even if it means being unjust to one or two people to please the majority?

 

Do we trade fairness for stability?

 

Those who were banned were banned due to a pattern of behaviour, not due to any single post.

I can't speak for Cynthia or Pink as we haven't crossed paths very often but I can definitely say that I've yet to see Kata or Yop display a pattern of behaviour that merits banning. They have a sarcastic manner and they often highlight the less rosy other side of the story (which has equal right to be heard) but they have always been within reason, I've yet to see them overstep their rights or the rights of others. This is why I am confused: previous mod posts on the matter made it seem like there had been some sort of behind-the-scenes discussion which merited their being banned but as Babs has communicated from them there hasn't been. I do not understand the reasoning behind the mods banning them in the slightest.

 

So you'd like some sort of moderator statement clearly explaining why so-and-so has received a ban in each case?

 

On one hand, I understand that, and will ensure the moderator team has a chance to discuss this. For one, it's hard for people to avoid breaking the "rules" if they feel it's unclear exactly what the "rules" are. Secondly, I understand people feeling perplexed when a longtime member of the community has been banned (if only temporarily) for seemingly vague reasons.

 

The flip side is privacy. It would be against the grain of how we currently do things if we were to write something like "Suzy is banned for a week because she PM'd Christine and called her a slutty rotten apple. She then posted a thread about how she actually knows Mika's second cousin who told her that Mika thinks all MFCers are a bunch of douchebags".

 

That said, I'm getting the feeling that some people feel us moderators are operating behind some shroud of secrecy, and I'll make sure that the moderation team does discuss that.

I would definitely like an explanation. Based on what I've seen I feel that the banning of Kata and Yop was an unfair overreaction to their dramatic but no less truthful statements of their discontent with the forum's current state and I would appreciate clarification. I would like to continue believing that our mod team has fair and reasoned arguments to support their decisions but until some form of explanation is given I must question it. But, of course, only if Kata and Yop don't mind it being disclosed.

 

I think that if a regular member is banned they should be asked if they would like a public explanation posted or an explanation PMed to those who are interested or no explanation posted at all. I think that they should have a say in the matter of what is disclosed, with the mods discretion in some cases for example with 'trolls'). In the case of Cynthia, I don't know whether her permission was sought or not.

[JackViolet]

 

So you'd like some sort of moderator statement clearly explaining why so-and-so has received a ban in each case?

 

On one hand, I understand that, and will ensure the moderator team has a chance to discuss this. For one, it's hard for people to avoid breaking the "rules" if they feel it's unclear exactly what the "rules" are. Secondly, I understand people feeling perplexed when a longtime member of the community has been banned (if only temporarily) for seemingly vague reasons.

 

Yes please. It doesn't have to be a huge deal--just a short, pithy list of reasons by whoever does the banning. This way people would at least have some sense of what's going on and won't have to feel like they too could be banned at any moment for reasons that are both secret and confusing.

 

The flip side is privacy. It would be against the grain of how we currently do things if we were to write something like "Suzy is banned for a week because she PM'd Christine and called her a slutty rotten apple. She then posted a thread about how she actually knows Mika's second cousin who told her that Mika thinks all MFCers are a bunch of douchebags".

 

Not at all. Of course you may not want to divulge everything, but a) if someone's really broken the rules, the loss of some privacy is understandable, b) there is no need to really go into detail.

 

For the example above, saying "Suzy is banned due to harassing PMs she sent to some members, and distributing inappropriate information regarding Mika's private life" should be quite enough. THEN people can PM for details but at least this way casual observers will see what types of infractions lead to bans, and that it's not for no reason at all.

 

In Cynthia's case, if the multiple ids had ANYTHING to do with it, you wouldn't have to "out" her alter ids, but just say that she had some. Although I don't think simply having multiple ids is an offense, is it?

 

--Jack

[JackViolet]

I can't speak for Cynthia or Pink as we haven't crossed paths very often

 

The reason for Pink's temp ban are pretty clear and obvious, and can easily be seen in the thread that caused her to be banned (ie, refusal to abide by certain stated rules, refusal to change behavior upon warning, disrespect of mods). I am looking foward to Pink's return, but that was a non-problematic ban.

 

I would definitely like an explanation. Based on what I've seen I feel that the banning of Kata and Yop was an unfair overreaction to their dramatic but no less truthful statements of their discontent with the forum's current state and I would appreciate clarification. I would like to continue believing that our mod team has fair and reasoned arguments to support their decisions but until some form of explanation is given I must question it. But, of course, only if Kata and Yop don't mind it being disclosed.

 

I don't think there's any need to ask for permission for disclosure. If a member clearly broke the rules, they deserve to be called on breaking the rules. If they did not, well, obviously that will come to light when reasons are given.

 

Certainly people's private PMs and such should not be posted, but that is not at all necessary for an explanation of what in the member's behavior led to a ban.

 

--Jack