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

[lilmot]

I, for one, am very happy that I no longer have to get up in the morning and decide how I am going to think or feel on the MFC. I only have to wait until some mod (who has had much deeper thought processes than mine) informs me what I should be feeling or thinking on that particular day. I am told to trust them absolutely and completely, and to forget about ever having made decisions of my own in any area of my life. If they chase me around the forums with this guy: () I will know that I am about to be banned for having a thought of my own. I will then desist immediately and go back to the which is now preferred.

 

Such a simple life....who do I have to thank for this? I think the rose coloured glasses are appropriate here.... since I always prefer to look on the positive side of things.

 

Once again, thanks for making my life so simple and I feel so safe knowing who I can trust and not trust without having to figure it out for myself. But, it would be even easier if there was a thread where we could all go get our marching orders for the day because I, being an oldling, do have some problems finding out these things a bit late.

 

Any suggestions?

[lollipop_monkey]

I, for one, am very happy that I no longer have to get up in the morning and decide how I am going to think or feel on the MFC. I only have to wait until some mod (who has had much deeper thought processes than mine) informs me what I should be feeling or thinking on that particular day. I am told to trust them absolutely and completely, and to forget about ever having made decisions of my own in any area of my life.

 

Um...huh?

 

Sorry lilmot, I'm just completely confused.

 

When were you told that mods will now be deciding how you will think or feel? Or that you are to "forget about ever having made decisions" of your own?

 

I'm sort of feeling like I've walked into a play during the second act, and the rest of you know what went on during the first act - and I'm still trying to connect all the dots.

 

If you don't want to respond publicly, feel free to PM - or PM dcdeb if you'd like to take it over my head. But for the record, I am genuinely baffled as to what you're referring to.

[JackViolet]

I think she's referring to when Kata was told that she should try to "look on the bright side" of her experience and that she was being too negative and upset about it? And then when she refused to try and sugarcoat it and said she was going to take a break due to how people were making her feel, she was banned?

 

 

I know it's an exaggeration, but I think that's what lilmot is referring to,

 

--Jack

[Scut Monkey]

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.

What if they later regret their actions? Would they be happy about the whole world knowing about their past mistakes? One could argue that they would deserve it, but I'd like to think that people can make mistakes and learn from them without losing their dignity. It sounds naive, I know. I would accept the alternative as I can see where you're coming from but I would prefer it if they were consulted, I'd rather people have the chance to make mistakes yet save face.... But then again if you make a mistake you must face the consequences, including humiliation. I'm in two minds about this. I'm clearly not making any sense whatsoever.

 

I think I need a coffee.

[JackViolet]

What if they later regret their actions? Would they be happy about the whole world knowing about their past mistakes? One could argue that they would deserve it, but I'd like to think that people can make mistakes and learn from them without losing their dignity. It sounds naive, I know. I would accept the alternative as I can see where you're coming from but I would prefer it if they were consulted, I'd rather people have the chance to make mistakes yet save face.... But then again if you make a mistake you must face the consequences, including humiliation. I'm in two minds about this. I'm clearly not making any sense whatsoever.

 

I think I need a coffee.

 

But a ban is already humiliation. It already says "this user did something REALLY wrong and broke the rules badly enough to be banned."

 

It may at least be public record why.

 

And yeah, I do believe that if you break the rules you deserve to be called on it and mods shouldn't worry about "saving face" on the guilty user's behalf. If they regret it and change, I'm sure people will be glad to give them a second chance anyway. Plus I don't think saying that "so and so sent harassing PMs" is all that embarrassing anyhow, if it's true, and most bannable offenses wouldn't take place via PM but be on-board anyway--and thus already in the public eye.

 

In this case, we have the opposite: there was a mention of PMs being involved in Yop's case without saying what kind or from whom or why, and Yop felt that due to the no-public-disclosure policy it was implied that she sent people inappropriate PMs when she did not.

 

--Jack

[Kelzy]

Found during some random google image searching

[Christine]

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 have sat back for the past couple of days tolerating this in silence because all I want from MFC at this point is presale codes for Mika's next North American tour. Those of us who were at the London concerts have endured 18 hours a day of non-stop MFC related drama and I don't want to participate in any more of it.

 

But I have to state for the record that no one here believes that there are legitimate reasons for the bannings. Whether we're right or wrong, the fact of the matter is you have a serious credibility problem at the moment because people cannot accept your lack of explanation as a satisfactory explanation under the circumstances.

 

I am just stating what is obvious to many but doesn't seem to be getting through to the mods in this case, so please don't shoot the messenger.

 

I have got a whole lot more to say on this subject, but like many other subjects that come up on MFC, I feel totally censored and I know if I voice my opinion I will have people on my ass threatening me here and in PM and I don't have the time or energy for it.

 

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.

 

This discussion about asking permission is entirely besides the point because Kata and Yop have both informed me that they do not know why they have been banned. The first order of business should be giving the people who are banned a proper explanation before tackling the issue of whether the rest of the forum needs to know the reasons.

 

This is why none of us who know Kata and Yop can accept the non-explanation by the mods as legitimate. If Kata and Yop had an explanation they would have told us and we wouldn't all be sat here wondering WTF is going on.

[JackViolet]

This discussion about asking permission is entirely besides the point because Kata and Yop have both informed me that they do not know why they have been banned. The first order of business should be giving the people who are banned a proper explanation before tackling the issue of whether the rest of the forum needs to know the reasons.

 

This is why none of us who know Kata and Yop can accept the non-explanation by the mods as legitimate. If Kata and Yop had an explanation they would have told us and we wouldn't all be sat here wondering WTF is going on.

 

This is why I think explanations should be provided--as a service to BOTH the banned user and the board itself. Or is else how is anyone supposed to modify their behavior in the future?

 

A ban is a punishment, like prison. We don't put people in prison without telling them WHY, do we? And this is also why, no offense Scut, I see the concern about saving face as bizarre. When we put people in prison, do we keep the reason secret so as not to shame them? Even if we told the prisoner why he was being detained, imagine what would happen if we refused any public explanation to society, and his friends and family other than "we had good reasons, trust us."

 

Thus I think even brief, public explanations for bans are crucial.

 

--Jack

[Scut Monkey]

But I have to state for the record that no one here believes that there are legitimate reasons for the bannings. Whether we're right or wrong, the fact of the matter is you have a serious credibility problem at the moment because people cannot accept your lack of explanation as a satisfactory explanation under the circumstances.

 

I am just stating what is obvious to many but doesn't seem to be getting through to the mods in this case, so please don't shoot the messenger.

Thanks for reiterating that point.

 

I would appreciate it if the mods could provide an explanation soon. Otherwise this will continue to hang in the air and I, for one, will continue to view it as an unfair decision made without reasoned argument. I think highly of the abilities of the MFC mode team and I don't want to have to question their credibility for longer.

 

This discussion about asking permission is entirely besides the point because Kata and Yop have both informed me that they do not know why they have been banned. The first order of business should be giving the people who are banned a proper explanation before tackling the issue of whether the rest of the forum needs to know the reasons.

 

This is why none of us who know Kata and Yop can accept the non-explanation by the mods as legitimate. If Kata and Yop had an explanation they would have told us and we wouldn't all be sat here wondering WTF is going on.

That's a good point. How can we debate disclosure of information to the public when those banned themselves haven't been given a satisfactory explanation?

[Diana]

Thing is, on the one hand you say you want a full explanation. Who did what and when.

On the other posting the "other identities" is too much and unnecessary?

If you want openness then it should be for the entire board to see, not just for the apples or the people that are friends with the banned users.

 

Cynthia, Yop and Kata were banned due to inflammatory posts, and ignoring repeated warnings to alter their behaviour. Niki27 recieved PMs from other members about Kata's behaviour, and for Yop and Cynthia, the "Dramatic Goodbye" thread was just the latest in a series of behaviours that we discourage on MFC.

 

Pinkunicorn123 was banned for repeatedly swearing in Dutch, and being extremely confrontational when asked to stop - along with other issues lately (the counting thread being a good example).

 

If you're expecting a full list of inflammatory posts and private messages then I'm sorry but I can't and won't provide you with that.

I hope this explanation will suffice. May I again emphasise that the ban is only temporary.

I don't mind you questioning our decisions, that's your right, but I ask you to also have a little bit of trust in us.

We're not out to get you, you know.

 

As for the other users that misbehaved, they were all contacted by pm and called out on their behaviour. They were asked to stop and apoligise which they did. That's all we ask for, we don't sit here looking for people to ban.

It's not an easy decision to make but sometimes enough is just enough and measures need to be taken.

 

The mod team is working on compiling a list of rules and guidelines for this forum and we think that will help a lot in the future.

 

If you have any further questions regarding the bannings or this post then I urge you to pm me. It's much easier answering questions that way. Thanks.

[Scut Monkey]

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.

We get that impression when we're told things like "just trust us" and have behind-the-scenes implications.

 

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.

I'm glad to hear it. I'd like to take you up on that, I'd appreciate more transparency.

[Scut Monkey]

Cynthia, Yop and Kata were banned due to inflammatory posts, and ignoring repeated warnings to alter their behaviour. Niki27 recieved PMs from other members about Kata's behaviour, and for Yop and Cynthia, the "Dramatic Goodbye" thread was just the latest in a series of behaviours that we discourage on MFC.

I'd like to clarify if I'm interpreting this correctly: we discourage people from stating that they're not happy with the current state of the forum? If so, do we discourage people from saying that they like the current state of the forum too? I believe that Kata's, Yop's and Cynthia's manner of stating their discontent may have been dramatic but the content of what they said I'd like to believe that they had the right to say. Am I mistaken?

[Diana]

I'd like to clarify if I'm interpreting this correctly: we discourage people from stating that they're not happy with the current state of the forum? If so, do we discourage people from saying that they like the current state of the forum too? I believe that Kata's, Yop's and Cynthia's manner of stating their discontent may have been dramatic but the content of what they said I'd like to believe that they had the right to say. Am I mistaken?

 

Ofcourse they have the right to voice their displeasure with the board!

We have a thread to discuss this in, the 'tone on the MFC' thread.

[Scut Monkey]

Ofcourse they have the right to voice their displeasure with the board!

We have a thread to discuss this in, the 'tone on the MFC' thread.

So were they banned because it wasn't said in that thread? Or for another reason?

[Diana]

So were they banned because it wasn't said in that thread? Or for another reason?

 

Cynthia, Yop and Kata were banned due to inflammatory posts, and ignoring repeated warnings to alter their behaviour. The "Dramatic Goodbye" thread was just the latest in a series of behaviours that we discourage on MFC.

 

It wasn't about the content, it was about the delivery.

Again, this was not the main reason for the bans.

It's been in the air for a long time, that thread was just the final straw.

[Scut Monkey]

It wasn't about the content, it was about the delivery.

Again, this was not the main reason for the bans.

It's been in the air for a long time, that thread was just the final straw.

So may I clarify: what exactly is "it" that has been in the air for a long time? A dramatic approach?

[Diana]

So may I clarify: what exactly is "it" that has been in the air for a long time? A dramatic approach?

 

The bans, obviously.

[JackViolet]

Thing is, on the one hand you say you want a full explanation. Who did what and when.

On the other posting the "other identities" is too much and unnecessary?

 

Yes. I've covered that above. It's not an all or nothing issue, and pretending so is a strawman argument.

 

If you want openness then it should be for the entire board to see, not just for the apples or the people that are friends with the banned users.

 

Certainly. That's exactly what I was asking for.

 

Cynthia, Yop and Kata were banned due to inflammatory posts, and ignoring repeated warnings to alter their behaviour. Niki27 recieved PMs from other members about Kata's behaviour, and for Yop and Cynthia, the "Dramatic Goodbye" thread was just the latest in a series of behaviours that we discourage on MFC.

 

Cynthia hasn't posted in ages, and none of what she posted before--except her account of GMA--has caused any controversy.

 

Yop has been entirely non inflammatory: in fact she posted in the Brixton thread that she enjoyed the afterparty despite not seeing Mika.

 

Her post in the Drama Goodbye thread (NOT Dramatic Goodbye, it was not a thread about "dramatic goodbyes" but rather a place for ANY user to tell people goodbye if they felt they had to leave) was simple and entirely non-inflammatory as well.

 

Am I right in assuming that Kata's "inflammatory" behavior which she refused to alter was her continuous expression of displeasure at the afterparty and the state of the forum? So it comes back to not being allowed to complain? Complain once and it's ok, complain 5 times and you're out?

 

In this case I agree with Scut--are people who start numerous threads about how much they love MFC or post often about how great this forum is also to be banned?

 

If you're expecting a full list of inflammatory posts and private messages then I'm sorry but I can't and won't provide you with that.

 

No one's asking for that, although it would help if we could feel confident that such inflammatory posts do in fact exist.

 

And I'm still confused as to the PM issue. If I got 10 people to PM the mods about how much they hate what say, CazGirl is posting and how we think it's offensive, would we be able to get her banned even if nothing she posted was actually against the rules, just because we think it's "inflammatory"?

 

As for the other users that misbehaved, they were all contacted by pm and called out on their behaviour. They were asked to stop and apoligise which they did. That's all we ask for, we don't sit here looking for people to ban.

 

And then some of them went to make more xenophobic or mean-spirited posts in other threads.

 

The mod team is working on compiling a list of rules and guidelines for this forum and we think that will help a lot in the future.

 

Yes it will, because I'd like to know what makes a post "inflammatory."

 

If you have any further questions regarding the bannings or this post then I urge you to pm me. It's much easier answering questions that way. Thanks.

 

How so? Several of us have the same questions. This way you only have to answer once, and all of us can read it, as can anyone else who wants to know. It seems easier than having to PM you individually and then compare the responses we get behind-the-scenes through yet more PMs and paraphrasing.

 

--Jack

[JackViolet]

It wasn't about the content, it was about the delivery.

Again, this was not the main reason for the bans.

It's been in the air for a long time, that thread was just the final straw.

 

Delivery?

 

Here are the posts made in the Drama Goodbye thread:

 

Kata: "A place for people who abandon ship to wave goodbye

 

au revoir "

 

 

Yoppapop: "bye kata ! bye cynthia ! see you outside !!

 

bye all !! for the 2nd time..."

 

Can someone please tell me what's so shockingly inflammatory about the delivery of these posts? They seem entirely reserved, gentle, and polite to me.

 

These were the only things they posted in that thread before being banned.

 

Saying "goodbye, au revoir" is "the final straw"???

 

--Jack

[Diana]

Listen, I made a statement about the bans on the previous page.

If you're not satisfied with the explanation, that's your prerogative.

They are your friends, you look at their behaviour in a different way than we do.

From my point of view, all you seem to want now is discuss it endlessly in this thread and somehow prove us wrong.

 

I asked you to pm me because I want things on the board to proceed as normal and not keep discussing the same issue for days on end.

[Pam Travers]

I think transparency is the way and pm's are the opposite of it..

 

Everytime someone is banned, moderators say "we have had tons of pms from members who received innapropriate pms of this specific members" then if you ask the banned members they have no clue about those so called pms= they didnt even pmd anyone, so there are 2 solutions, the moderators lie or some members really pmd them but those members lied = in both cases truth is nowhere...now there is no solution to that, people lie that's life...if there were no pms then everything would be on the forum only and thus everything would be in the public view, it would be much more difficult to make up stories...providing explanation when someone has been banned...well again lies can be provided and the banned members wont be there anymore to discuss it, i think no pms could be the solution to all the problems, public view for everything, transparency. I know no one will agree but I dont have any other solution to avoid lies.

 

now about the rules...i think everyone is willing to follow them but then JUST DEFINE THEM, how is anyone supposed to follow any rules if they are not clearly defined and if they change from a person to another? Rules here are like some picasso's paintings and it seems that they are not the same from everyone, somone say the word "****" and it's a scandal but then someone openly speak about threesome and it's OK. I dont personally get it but you tell me.

[Scut Monkey]

Listen, I made a statement about the bans on the previous page.

If you're not satisfied with the explanation, that's your prerogative.

They are your friends, you look at their behaviour in a different way than we do.

From my point of view, all you seem to want now is discuss it endlessly in this thread and somehow prove us wrong.

 

I asked you to pm me because I want things on the board to proceed as normal and not keep discussing the same issue for days on end.

I just want to be confident that your actions were justified. Based on your two line explanation of the bannings I do not feel that your actions were justified - that's why I'm asking further questions to give you the chance to explain properly and provide reasons for your actions. If you can't answer the questions that Jack has asked above then I can only assume that you don't have a logical explanation for your actions.

 

While you may feel that we are out to prove you wrong I get the feeling that you're trying to cover up your tracks after making a hasty, illogical decision. I'd like to think that the mods have enough integrity to admit when they've made a mistake.

 

I was hoping for a more transparent explanation but since you haven't provided it yet, from the insufficient explanation that you've provided so far I believe that you indeed have made a mistake.

 

I'm still hoping that you will clear the matter up by elaborating further or answering some of our questions above.

[Christine]

From my point of view, all you seem to want now is discuss it endlessly in this thread and somehow prove us wrong.

 

What we want now is to know what exactly provokes a banning because we have no idea what the criteria is.

 

As you pointed out, we don't see anything banworthy in Kata, Yop or Cynthia's behaviour which means our own behaviour could be just as offensive or inflammatory or whatever it is you think warrants a ban.

 

Are we supposed to spend our future on MFC tiptoeing around 10,000 users who may or may not find our posts offensive or inflammatory because it will result in a banning?

 

How are we supposed to function under these circumstances? The lack of rules, lack of transparency and vague accusations by unnamed people that is pervading this forum in the past few weeks is paralyzing. People are making jokes like "Suzy, don't get yourself banned today." but there is a sad truth at the root of it.

 

The atmosphere around here is becoming horrific and I am disheartened that the people who want to discuss these things openly are always taking the blame for it.

[nico_collard]

now about the rules...i think everyone is willing to follow them but then JUST DEFINE THEM, how is anyone supposed to follow any rules if they are not clearly defined and if they change from a person to another? Rules here are like some picasso's paintings and it seems that they are not the same from everyone, somone say the word "****" and it's a scandal but then someone openly speak about threesome and it's OK. I dont personally get it but you tell me.

 

Well, once they're agreed on by all the mods we will be posting them...

 

I think we all agree that we need to be as open as possible for this place to run as smoothly as possible...

 

Though, maybe I'm wrong, but I feel the conversation is going in circles...

 

 

 

So, I shall sleep on it... and make myself more stressed out as it is (mostly cause of the main part of my sig and waiting to hear about jobs)...

 

 

Night all...

[Diana]

I was hoping for a more transparent explanation but since you haven't provided it yet, from the insufficient explanation that you've provided so far, I believe that you indeed have made a mistake.

 

Like I said, you're entitled to question our decisions, I wouldn't expect otherwise from you.

The decision to temporarily ban wasn't made hastily and I still stand firmly behind it.

 

Regarding the explanation I gave you.. I think I made it clear on the previous page that what I said had to suffice.

I can not and will not go into details.

 

What we want now is to know what exactly provokes a banning because we have no idea what the criteria is.

 

We're working on a list of rules and guidelines.

 

This is the end of the discussion from my side because I'll only end up repeating myself.