This post is not meant to rile anyone up at all. I mean this to be very calmly stated and to provoke intellectual discussion. I genuinely want to know what the purpose of having a subforum labeled "suggestions and feedback" is if we are not allowed to debate the rules without receiving an infraction.
I guess it depends on how you debate it. If you just act all "I hate the rules!!" and whine, then it gets an infraction.
Also, it seems like certain things would be better off PMed to a mod than debated endlessly in an open forum.
A moderator can ignore or may not have the power or inclination to make change. By making change requests public, the users of this site are then given a choice to show support for the change. If enough people desire change, then it should happen.
+1 A community that actively participates in the feedback process creates a better, more collaborative environment for everyone. Cheers,
^^Maybe a moderator could create a separate thread with a poll that confronts the complaints. And if enough people agree/disagree on the discussion, and submit their votes, perhaps a mod (or whoever has the ability) could change the desired "thing." Sorta how a petition works. This just a suggestion, guys. I’m not trying to rile anyone up or undermine anyone’s authority. I know rules are set in place for a reason, but if enough people do see eye to eye on a few of them, perhaps we can democratically exist here. But of course -- this is just my own opinion.
Making suggestions is one thing, but whining about the rules endlessly, at every opportunity, is likely to be taken badly. Heather is right, that in a lot of cases things should be messaged to moderators rather than posted publicly. Moderators might not have the ability to affect a change, but we can talk to Daniel about it. Also, we have a more complete understanding of the site, and thus of the consequences of proposed changes. Lastly, I'd point out that this isn't actually a democracy. All members agree to the rules when they sign up, and I'm not going to propose that we redraft the rules for every fad that takes the membership. It's impractical, and has the potential to cause too many problems.
Here is a few things for the OP #1 No where in this site dose it say it is a democracy, in fact mods are picked by mods not by the users, no where dose it say you get to decide, in fact most bored are like this, you sign on you follow the rules #2 he told you why this forum would not work, and you disagreed, thats fine how ever if the admin says no its no think of it like your in someone's else's house, its his rules you can bring it up, but if they so no its no
Exactly. I highly doubt that anyone who may have received an infraction received it for posting here to make a suggestion. It's when you post, you get told why something is, and then you continue to endlessly complain about it that the problem comes in. Especially when you post in a thread, the thread is closed, and then you create another thread to complain about the first thread being closed...that is when it would probably be a good time to PM a mod instead.
These are all good points and I can understand the rationale espoused therein, however, even a private enterprise, free to operate as its owners choose, should have some flexibility in order to grow, improve and thrive. Granted we as members cannot expect a fully democratic say in the operation of such a private enterprise but we should at the very least feel our words are taken to heart. If the suggestion/feedback area doesn't truly provide the site management with something to consider than it is no better than the suggestion box at work where management discards the suggestions unread at the end of each week. I think it would be nice for people to occasionally see some flexibility in dealing with concerns that might matter to a subset of the membership. I think some of us just want to know our voices are being heard and some consideration has/been or will be given. Everyone likes to know their opinions matter -even if it's just a little. Cheers,
I agree how ever, his voice was heard and was explained why it would not work https://www.writingforums.org/showthread.php?t=35685 link to the thread in question (just in case you did not read it already)
here are more general ideas at work here. It is about more than just one thread really. This is more about authoritarian vs benevolent dictatorships and relevant approaches to control of the masses. Some of the basic principles and the exercising of power are what I see as the relevant issues here. If the rules and enforcement of these rules causes forum members undue stress or duress, then the rules should be changed, or the enforcement of said rules should be altered. What is there to lose by making this site more favorable and more forgiving of infractions?
I like to write so let me tell two stories that relate to this thread. When I was still pretty new here I did some stupid stuff and thought that the forum needed to change to be better (in my own eyes). I made posts, I rattled sabers, I posted a picture or two which I thought were totally kosher by forum rules. The result was that I got these bad boys: But I took them in stride. I disagreed with the mod who issued them, and I told them so. In the end however, I realized that this was not MY message board, and the disagreement was not so vast that I felt I needed to exile myself. Later I proposed a change to the way the board ran. I really thought I had them this time; I found an old and forgotten part of the board and proposed a change to update it. Again the mods told me 'No', which is one of their favorite words. I was devastated. Before I asked 'why' (it was as if the mods have psychic powers, or go through similar cases frequently), they answered me. Turns out, I was wrong. I had misunderstood the role of that board function. I didn't raise a stink. I accepted that I was wrong and moved on with my life. In both cases I learned something new and in both cases I continued on to have a productive experience here. The thread (and member) in question, as linked by wolfi, was out of line. Such discussion/disagreement is what we have a PM system for. If the Mods tell you 'No, we will not change this because of XYZ' then it is time to move on with your own life.
Your Majesty, I understand you are the voice of reason and purveyor of hugs; perhaps it would be even better if your application of reasonableness and ability to relax applied to everyone involved and situations such as this might be diffused before they escalate to infraction. Fixed that for you. Cheers,
Exactly. I have an infraction of my own and I deserved it. I agree with Kyle. Just learn from the mistake and move on.
I remember getting infracted in another forum site for "spamming," and trolling, and I feel that I wasn't. Now I'm afraid to post on this site. And I think that Lord Kyle is right, that if we don't be open to what we done wrong, odds are that we will drown ourselves and get a worse result than we already did, so we should just move on and not cry over spilled milk (unless it contains poison in the milk).
The assumption is that moderators are always fair, just and unbiased. Sometimes mods go over the odds and hand out unjust decisions. It happens here, it happens everywhere actually. People are people and they make mistakes. We as users are held accountable for the mistakes we make on this forum, but I have seen no evidence that Moderators are held accountable for their mistakes. They might be, but thus far, I have seen no such evidence.
One thing I find disagreeable is the almost automatic response to any criticism of the forum (and there are a couple of instances in this thread) that the forum is not a democracy. That is completely irrelevant. No one (from what I can tell) is talking about changing the rules of the forum, or that anything should require a vote. All some people are asking is that the rules that are there be enforced in a matter befitting a community in which most of us (I hope) are of average (or above) intelligence. As SashaMerideth said, we are all human and we all make mistakes. No matter who makes the decisions or how they are chosen, decision-makers need objective feedback on their decisions. Having a reasonable discussion about a decision would give those who run the site a better idea of how the community feels about it, thereby allowing them to make better decisions in the future.
ok, i have to put in my own 2 cents now, i guess... i've been a member here since this site was started by fellow ex-writingforums.com members, as a spin-off from that version, which had become a very unpleasant place to be, due to bad behavior of some members and the laxity of its admin and mods in dealing with same... and in the years i've been here, after years of helping writers on many other writing sites, i have found it to be without question the absolute best, best-run site for writers on the internet... as a daily poster during these years, i can also tell you that all but the tiniest percentage of those who come here would agree with me about how well it's run and don't see any need to put things to a vote of the membership, which would be nonsensical, imo... i hope this whole matter can now be put to rest and that you'll all go on to more time-worthy pursuits... love and hugs, maia
No one is disputing anyone's right to have a reasonable discussion. Granted, I don't have access to every infraction ever given, but I highly doubt that the mods, however imperfect, run around throwing infractions at members willy nilly. Therefore, I feel fairly confident saying that the discussion which resulted in the infraction was not a reasonable one.
I don't want to get involved in this anymore than I already am...but I will just inform Wolfi and a few others that I am a female. Jo is the feminine spelling; Joe is the masculine spelling. Please see Little Women by Louisa May Alcott for further clarification. If you are going to rebuke me for whining "endlessly", at least do so in the correct gender. Thank you.
