PLEASE READ: Forum Guidelines

[Kelzy]

Your examples are extreme, I'm more interested in the grey in the middle. I'm not talking about saying "give me a f***ing garden salad" more like the difference between bluntly saying "I want a green garden salad and make it snappy, the last time I was here your service was unbelievably slow" and sweetly saying "I'd like to have a green garden salad, sir". The flipside: I don't change myself for people in a restaurant, so why do it here? I talk the same way on the MFC as I talk in real life, a tad sarcastically a tad cynically a tad bluntly - what if someone is offended when that's not my intention? Am I going to need to deliberately change who I am or stop posting all together (as some people have done after their bannings)? I may view others as being over-sensitive whereas you may think it's "polite" - it's subjective. In the end I'll be the one not welcome here because you think I'm "disruptive" when it's not my intention to cause trouble - we merely have different arbitrary standards. It's not fair... but life isn't fair, is it? So I'll just have to conform to arbitrary subjective rules if I want to stay here...

 

You've been here 9 months and you haven't had an infraction or a banning yet. I'd say the mods are aware that you are a reasonable person and if you do offend you would want to know how and why and sort it out. I happen to know that is true about you. So you can't argue that point about yourself with me Miss Monkey

 

But in the case of other people then it comes down to how they have portrayed themselves over the time they have been on MFC. You know there are people out there that believe that what they say and do is right regardless. I think that's an attitude that needs addressing and is the problem itself.

I know you are talking more about the recent bannings, but I'm not. I don't know everything that went on there obviously. I'm trying to talk about this in a futuristic sense. I'm saying that in future, if this, this and this happens this many times then this person's not learning that publicly saying or doing such things will get them into an unpleasant situation. Therefore, they aren't willing to even try to make MFC a good place to come to and could be likened to a serial party pooper.

[greta]

we share the same point of view on the situation, Scut :thumbup:

[FREDDIESDOUBLE]

Your examples are extreme, I'm more interested in the grey in the middle. I'm not talking about saying "give me a f***ing garden salad" more like the difference between bluntly saying "I want a green garden salad and make it snappy, the last time I was here your service was unbelievably slow" and sweetly saying "I'd like to have a green garden salad, sir". The flipside of your statement: I don't change myself for people in a restaurant, so why do it here? I talk the same way on the MFC as I talk in real life, a tad sarcastically a tad cynically a tad bluntly - what if someone is offended when that's not my intention? Am I going to need to deliberately change who I am or stop posting all together (as some people have done after their bannings) to make it easier? I may view others as being over-sensitive whereas you may think it's "polite" - it's subjective. In the end I'll be the one not welcome here because you think I'm "disruptive" when it's not my intention to cause trouble - we merely have different arbitrary standards. It's not fair... but life isn't fair, is it? So I'll just have to conform to arbitrary subjective rules if I want to stay here...

 

Kelty has already said it. you havent been banned or warned or anything .. so whats your concerns now??

[Kata]

I managed to have the same pattern of behaviour for a year before it resulted in a ban, so I'm not sure how to take these guidelines...( )

Also I have the same pattern of behaviour out in the real world, some like it and some certainly don't, but that doesn't make me completely change who I am to please people I don't get along with anyway

[Scut Monkey]

You've been here 9 months and you haven't had an infraction or a banning yet. I'd say the mods are aware that you are a reasonable person and if you do offend you would want to know how and why and sort it out. I happen to know that is true about you. So you can't argue that point about yourself with me Miss Monkey

 

But in the case of other people then it comes down to how they have portrayed themselves over the time they have been on MFC. You know there are people out there that believe that what they say and do is right regardless. I think that's an attitude that needs addressing and is the problem itself.

I know you are talking more about the recent bannings, but I'm not. I don't know everything that went on there obviously. I'm trying to talk about this in a futuristic sense. I'm saying that in future, if this, this and this happens this many times then this person's not learning that publicly saying or doing such things will get them into an unpleasant situation. Therefore, they aren't willing to even try to make MFC a good place to come to and could be likened to a serial party pooper.

Oh I'm not talking about me, in fact I have so far never been contacted by any mod about anything that I've written (*knock on wood*). I'm talking about the type of people who are marginalised by these guidelines.

 

It's not about "believing that what they say and do is right regardless", it's about the fact that there is no "right" in the first place, it's subjective. In the end one party will need to conform to the other party's arbitrary subjective rules for them to continue interacting. In this case the less conservative and conventional must conform or leave. It's sad but it's the reality. That is, until we can learn to be less sensitive and truly accepting of one another's differing views. But with different cultures and age groups in the MFC I don't see that ever happening. We just have to live with it: it is an imperfect system. IMO we shouldn't deceive ourselves and tout it as our "100% guarantee of a solution" as Suzy called it. It's something that we can loosely work with but that's about all.

 

 

By the way: I'm not discrediting the work that the mods and admins have put into these guidelines, it's difficult to draw the line in subjective matters. I'm simply stating that I disagree with some of it and letting it be known that not everyone thinks that these guidelines are perfect. But I don't expect anything to change just because I disagree.

[dcdeb]

OK, it's only 7 in the morning and I'm just on my first cup of

coffee, so I apologize if I'm being a bit thick... but some of what I'm reading here just seems too overanalytical and serious

for me and I'm not understanding it... Please help me here:

 

[in theory] nothing is gonna change with these forum guidelines because the method seems the same: Accountability->a process of verifying the quality of decisions or actions after they have been taken=>A. implements some sort of punishment mechanism against individuals judged to have taken poor quality decisions or actions, after those decisions have been taken or actions carried out. Instead of Transparency-> requires decision making to be transparent right from the beginning of the decision making process=>T. encourages corrections and improvements to decisions to be made long before poor quality decisions have the chance to be enacted. Hence, radical transparency potentially helps avoid the need for punishment mechanisms. Radical transparency is a management method where nearly all decision making is carried out publicly. All draft documents, all arguments for and against a proposal, the decisions about the decision making process itself, and all final decisions, are made publicly and remain publicly archived. The only exceptions to full transparency include data related to personal security or passwords or keys necessary for physical access required to carry out publicly negotiated decisions. Any technical actions which are perceived to be controversial or political are considered to lack legitimacy until a clear, radically transparent decision has been made concerning them. The potential of radical transparency to allow corrections and improvements to decision making is likely to be higher when the decision making method is either a consensus decision making method or a democratic decision making method. However, even when the decision making method is authoritarian (unilateral), radical transparency may still encourage the decision maker to make better decisions. ok I've paraphrased a bit of my studies the moral of the story is: avoid pms if not for private chats{?}

 

LOL! I've read this 4 times and I still don't understand it. Maybe

I need more coffee.

 

We're not a business, so I don't get how this applies to the MFC. We

moderators are not "management" -- we're just members like you who

have been charged with trying

to maintain some semblance of order when things threaten to get

a little *out* of order, such as when there are arguments. We're not

making life or death decisions, and what we decide is not going to

result in anyone being burned at the stake...

we're just trying to act as arbitrators, really -- trying to keep things on an even keel.

 

To me, the process for potentially banning someone, which doesn't

happen that often despite recent events, is as

transparent as we can make it without turning this into

an unmoderated forum -- which I'm sure some of you would like...

but it's not unmoderated, and it's not for me to decide

whether it ought to be.

 

You see here in black and white our attempt to define

what might be considered as a violation of the guidelines and what

happens if you do violate them. And I stress

that they ARE guidelines, we were careful not to call them RULES,

because they are not set in stone.

I do think there is room for not only mod discretion, and judgement,

but also modification, and evolution.

 

So please help me to understand what we need this "radical transparency"

for. I'm not being sarcastic, I just am trying to understand your point

of view.

 

dcdeb

[FREDDIESDOUBLE]

Your right DC , The mods ideally should just sit back and chat , arguments should sort themselves out and we concentrate on the bad things .. spammers etc

 

I think we are taking it a tad too serious

[Scut Monkey]

Your right DC , The mods ideally should just sit back and chat , arguments should sort themselves out and we concentrate on the bad things .. spammers etc

 

I think we are taking it a tad too serious

We're not being too serious at all. Are we not going to become official? Because when (if?) we do you won't be deciding matters just for a private fan forum where the mods and admins have the freedom to do as they please but for an artist's official fan club, which is something in a whole other league. There's more stringent accountability for you involved in that.

[greta]

ahaha abstract studies led only to confusion I've nothing against "The Grades" {if they're enlightened}; a forum can't exist without mods and we appreciate your work. I'm not sure I've understand right how to apply the transparency concept on a fan forum..anyway my interpretation is very similar to Scut's one. And I think guidelines are a bit more useful than pms, but a list of do and don't may not be the solution.

[RAK1]

This is a bit tricky isn't it.

All of us who have been on since the start, know how to take the people who have certain ways if saying things, since we have kind of grown with them.

But newbies and people who come on in the future, may not be sure how to take them, so that's where the problems lie. No one is saying they should change, that wouldn't be fair, but if they find themselves in a situation where the other person complains, maybe the mods mediating can explain to the complainent that the person being complained about isn't being nasty, just that they are expressing their opinion in their own way.

I hopeI'm making sense.

[Kata]

I feel a bit hounded out with the "don't use :mf_rosetinted:" guideline How about making a special apple rule, so we can use it in our one thread as we please and others can choose not to open that thread then?

[nico_collard]

Girls will be girls, and frankly, this place is an estrogen-fest with a reasonably attractive young male at the centre of all the attention - at times things may be said that you might not hear in a nunnery. But I think most people are capable of judging where the line is - nothing overly explicit, obviously.

 

OG... is it wrong that I thought of Deano before I thought of Mika???

 

How embarrassment...

 

Like posting a random naked schlong in the Mikagasmic thread - that counts as "overly explicit." And yes, it's happened before.

 

I obviously missed that...

 

For example: If I accidentally insulted you right now - and you told me so - would I feel bad? And, then, would I be more careful in future not to insult someone else in a similar way?

 

I immediately thought of an answer for the bold bit... No.

 

Im interested in this part , do you mean towards an MFC member or towards a mod/admin , or both ?

 

 

I think she might mean someone independent from the mods...

 

In the end I'll be the one not welcome here because you think I'm "disruptive" when it's not my intention to cause trouble - we merely have different arbitrary standards. It's not fair... but life isn't fair, is it? So I'll just have to conform to arbitrary subjective rules if I want to stay here...

 

*plays violin*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a more serious note, I think the guidelines sound pretty good, and I like Blue Sky's suggestion ...

 

One question though... generally speaking (cause I know situations change and all that), how many temporary bannings would someone get before they got a permanent ban?

[nico_collard]

I feel a bit hounded out with the "don't use :mf_rosetinted:" guideline How about making a special apple rule, so we can use it in our one thread as we please and others can choose not to open that thread then?

Sounds fair to me...

[Scut Monkey]

*plays violin*

 

That is the point, it's sad.

[Kelzy]

Well, let's not confuse making comments that may insult or offend other people with maturity, common decency and common courtesy then.

[Scut Monkey]

Well, let's not confuse making comments that may insult or offend other people with maturity, common decency and common courtesy then.

Once again: where do we draw the line in defining things as subjective as "decency" and "courtesy" etc.? Let's not beat about the bush and act like it's rationalisable, just say it: it's "act like everyone else", simple as that.

[Kelzy]

Once again: where do we draw the line in defining "decency" and "courtesy" etc.? Let's not beat about the bush and act like it's rationalisable, just say it: it's "act like everyone else", simple as that.

 

It's not about acting like everyone else. It's about knowing when not to hit submit.

[dcdeb]

By the way: I'm not discrediting the work that the mods and admins have put into these guidelines, it's difficult to draw the line in subjective matters. I'm simply stating that I disagree with some of it and letting it be known that not everyone thinks that these guidelines are perfect. But I don't expect anything to change just because I disagree.

 

Oh, I do not operate under the misconception that ANYTHING I do

or say or write is perfect -- I have a husband and son whose job it

is (apparently) to remind me of how IMperfect I am. Daily

 

But you're right Scut, it is difficult to deal with the subjective and I hope

that you realize that WE struggle with it. We try not to overreact and

try not to misjudge -- I know I personally always try to be fair and

open-minded, and I'm sure the other mods are the same. We may

make mistakes, but nothing we do is irreversible, thankfully -- we

can always correct our mistakes.

 

We're not being too serious at all. Are we not going to become official? Because when (if?) we do you won't be deciding matters just for a private fan forum where the mods and admins have the freedom to do as they please but for an artist's official fan club, which is something in a whole other league. There's more stringent accountability for you involved in that.

 

Well, yes, but when/if we become official, there may be a whole new

set of rules introduced, so this may all be moot. And for the record, I

don't feel NOW that I'm free to do as I please -- I believe I am accountable

not just to the other moderators, but to the membership here. If I screw up

it's done in a very public way, and I hear about it. Believe me, that's

just another reason for me to think about my actions carefully!

 

ahaha abstract studies led only to confusion. I've nothing against "The Grades" {if they're enlightened}; a forum can't exist without mods and we appreciate your work. I'm not sure I've understand right how to apply the transparency concept on a fan forum..anyway my interpretation is very similar to Scut's one. And I think guidelines are a bit more useful than pms, but a list of do and don't may not be the solution.

 

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. (I've also had more coffee, I'm

sure that helps!) I tend to use PMs because I think most people

would prefer being questioned or warned about something

in private, rather than in public. I know I would rather have someone

PM me to tell me I shouldn't have done something, than embarrass me

in public, in front of everyone. But

maybe I'm projecting my own sensitivity onto others. Maybe it is better

to do more moderating-type messages out in the open. *thinks*

The PMs are

certainly not done to be secretive, at least not on my part, but more

because I don't like to air dirty laundry in public. (Does that phrase

have an equivalent in other languages? ) But I'll consider being

more public in the future.

 

This is a bit tricky isn't it.

All of us who have been on since the start, know how to take the people who have certain ways if saying things, since we have kind of grown with them.

But newbies and people who come on in the future, may not be sure how to take them, so that's where the problems lie. No one is saying they should change, that wouldn't be fair, but if they find themselves in a situation where the other person complains, maybe the mods mediating can explain to the complainent that the person being complained about isn't being nasty, just that they are expressing their opinion in their own way.

I hopeI'm making sense.

 

Rose, you always make sense to me. Well, except for that whole

penguin thing... I never understood that!

 

Seriously, what you say is true -- a lot of us are old-timers now, many of

us have even met IRL, and so we know each others' personalities. But

for newbies, they are on the outside looking in, which makes it hard.

And believe me, I have certainly done my share of explaining, "Oh, she

didn't mean anything by it, that's just the way she is."

 

 

dcdeb

[Blue Sky]

Im interested in this part , do you mean towards an MFC member or towards a mod/admin , or both ?

 

 

I think having an avenue of appeal would need to be a way of reviewing actions taken by mods if someone felt unfairly treated. Not a moderator of the mods, but just a process where each side could have a review, with lots of listening. My guess is it would probably need to be a team of 3 or 4 people who would be independent of mods, and perhaps chosen for their RL experience of doing such stuff. Only called in to review particularly serious situations, and only involved after the person aggrieved has been informed that there is a review panel, and the person aggrieved decides to take it to the review panel. There may be some people who behave questionably, get banned, and never return, but there may be some people who don't believe their behaviour was as bad as the mods assessed it to be, and therefore they would like to appeal their infraction score/banning or whatever. Then the grievance panel/appeal panel or whatever could get involved only where requested by the aggrieved person.

 

Having the process in place JUST IN CASE is a very prudent idea as we look towards being the official fan club.

 

In this kind of situation, where mods see some questionable things from a member on the forum, I think it is crucial to keep confidential records of correspondence taking place with the member. Otherwise there is no way of going back and checking what in fact occurred. I am not a mod so I don't know if you already do this, but it may be an idea to have separate "files" for such PMs, or to keep track of questionable behaviour. It all facilitates review when necessary. (Not total radical transparency, though!! This is a forum not a for-profit business!)

 

 

I feel a bit hounded out with the "don't use :mf_rosetinted:" guideline How about making a special apple rule, so we can use it in our one thread as we please and others can choose not to open that thread then?

 

I think it is nice for the apples to have their own place. Many of us love them (with all of their peculiarities:mf_rosetinted:), and enjoy our conversations with them, even when they are using the a lot. ( I am not sure whether I am "in" or "out" of being an apple...suspect I am a tad too chocolatey for their liking...but I do like that they have their own home ground in their thread)

[nico_collard]

That is the point, it's sad.

 

I know it is... I totally see your point too... but I couldn't help myself...

 

Once again: where do we draw the line in defining things as subjective as "decency" and "courtesy" etc.? Let's not beat about the bush and act like it's rationalisable, just say it: it's "act like everyone else", simple as that.

 

Is rationalisable even a word?

 

 

 

 

I'm serious... I don't think I've ever seen anyone use that word before... if it really is one...

[RAK1]

Oh, I do not operate under the misconception that ANYTHING I do

or say or write is perfect -- I have a husband and son whose job it

is (apparently) to remind me of how IMperfect I am. Daily

 

But you're right Scut, it is difficult to deal with the subjective and I hope

that you realize that WE struggle with it. We try not to overreact and

try not to misjudge -- I know I personally always try to be fair and

open-minded, and I'm sure the other mods are the same. We may

make mistakes, but nothing we do is irreversible, thankfully -- we

can always correct our mistakes.

 

 

 

Well, yes, but when/if we become official, there may be a whole new

set of rules introduced, so this may all be moot. And for the record, I

don't feel NOW that I'm free to do as I please -- I believe I am accountable

not just to the other moderators, but to the membership here. If I screw up

it's done in a very public way, and I hear about it. Believe me, that's

just another reason for me to think about my actions carefully!

 

 

 

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. (I've also had more coffee, I'm

sure that helps!) I tend to use PMs because I think most people

would prefer being questioned or warned about something

in private, rather than in public. I know I would rather have someone

PM me to tell me I shouldn't have done something, than embarrass me

in public, in front of everyone. But

maybe I'm projecting my own sensitivity onto others. Maybe it is better

to do more moderating-type messages out in the open. *thinks*

The PMs are

certainly not done to be secretive, at least not on my part, but more

because I don't like to air dirty laundry in public. (Does that phrase

have an equivalent in other languages? ) But I'll consider being

more public in the future.

 

 

 

Rose, you always make sense to me. Well, except for that whole

penguin thing... I never understood that!

 

Seriously, what you say is true -- a lot of us are old-timers now, many of

us have even met IRL, and so we know each others' personalities. But

for newbies, they are on the outside looking in, which makes it hard.

And believe me, I have certainly done my share of explaining, "Oh, she

didn't mean anything by it, that's just the way she is."

 

 

dcdeb

 

Ha ha, the penguin wasn't meant to make sense, it was supposed to be surreal, guess that's what attracted Mika.LOL!

[Scut Monkey]

It's not about acting like everyone else. It's about knowing when not to hit submit.

Only hit submit when you're sticking to everyone else's definitions of what's appropriate.

[dcdeb]

I feel a bit hounded out with the "don't use :mf_rosetinted:" guideline How about making a special apple rule, so we can use it in our one thread as we please and others can choose not to open that thread then?

 

I would certainly support that.

 

(But I hope you read my earlier post about the use of --

you know that we're not saying you can't use that smilie!)

 

 

One question though... generally speaking (cause I know situations change and all that), how many temporary bannings would someone get before they got a permanent ban?

 

Well, I didn't think we needed to have an exact number prescribed

in advance -- because I'm hopeful that we really won't ever have

to get to this point with anyone. But what do you think? Do we need

to have this quantified? Should we say "three strikes and you're out?"

Would that be two temporary bans, and the third one is permanent?

I don't know -- I'm not comfortable with saying something like that

because, as I said, I really would hope we'd never have to use

that type of ban. (I originally typed "bun." It must be breakfast time...)

 

I think having an avenue of appeal would need to be a way of reviewing actions taken by mods if someone felt unfairly treated. Not a moderator of the mods, but just a process where each side could have a review, with lots of listening.

 

Having the process in place JUST IN CASE is a very prudent idea as we look towards being the official fan club.

 

I understand where you're coming from Blue Sky, and will use your

ideas here as we talk more about this. Look for a PM from me

 

dcdeb

[FREDDIESDOUBLE]

Blue sky

 

Ok ... Ive been thinking about this a lot lately and I quite like the idea , if someone has an issue with Modding , (end of the day none of us are perfect) we do need something ...

 

This should be the true role of admin .. obviously things will change on the MFC and can look at it futher but I along with a few MFCers would work .

 

The admin role should be independant .. please bear in mind that DC runs the mod structure

 

Anyways we can look into it , the results of that group need to be fed to someone and that would be admin

[Kelzy]

Only hit submit when you're sticking to everyone else's definitions of what's appropriate.

 

Let me get back to the original guideline you are questioning for a second:

Do not hide behind saying your comment was meant as "a joke", or use the

rose-colored glasses icon or white text to disguise a nasty remark. Just

saying you didn't mean something as an insult doesn't make it any less of

one.

and Deb's comment:

The point is that sarcasm is one thing, but it's not cool to

act innocent and pretend that an insult or a remark that

was meant to be hurtful was really a joke. If your underlying

intention was mean-spirited, the smilie doesn't erase that.

 

 

It's NOT censorship.. This is NOT a ban on freedom of speech. This is NOT saying that no one has a right to have an opinion.

 

This is saying use your friggin head. Have some respect. Don't post insults intending to upset someone. Don't make racist, sexist and discriminating remarks. Have some compassion. Treat others as you would have yourself treated.

 

Would you prefer that particular guideline was removed and we all were completely free to bad mouthed each other then lie and say "I was joking"