DISSCUSSION OF ANNOUNCEMENT: User Notes will be utlilized under our new policies

[Tangeloper]

This Wiki is for discussing the announcement about User Notes which can be found here (http://foru.ms/t6374965-announcement-user-notes-will-be-utlilized-under-our-new-policies.html):

The article can be used to summarize the discussion points made in the discussion.

Below is the text of the original announcement:

***********************
ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING USER NOTES

Under our new policies User Notes will be utilized.


User Notes shall include facts ONLY (i.e., Socks, FSB/Ban dates, Warnings).
A copy of user notes shall be provided to the member when updated, and upon request.
All user notes will be reviewed by the R&R Team to check for stale notes still in the system.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any questions regarding this policy should be directed to AngelDove97 (Policy Manager), or Tangeloper (Asst. Policy Manager).

Thank you for your cooperation.

[marvmax]

I think they should be visible to everyone that way we can compare notes. It might be fun to compare notes with someone like say Rochir - again not me of course ;) - and see who has the best notes written about them.

[GraceInHim]

from what I remember on staff; at one point in time, user notes were placed on members and visible to staff only. the notes appeared on every post the user made. seemed to be a mark on members.. bad idea

[Bombila]

Yeah.. where are they?

If you have notes on me I would like to see then now.

Is this typical board policy.. or just something that goes on at FU?

I have participated in a variety of forums over the past seven years, public and private, social or subject driven (science, nature, music, art, decorative painting, etc.). None of them have used the kind of convoluted system of member/posting controls that foru.ms uses.

Some of these forums were moderated for one or more of: bad language, trolls, bickering, harassment, spam. Some were not moderated at all, except to toss bickering posters into their own thread. I presently participate in two music forums and several science forums which are only moderated for spam and trolls.

The social forums were/are more likely to have bickering or harassment issues, but they weren't notably less successful in maintaining order or preventing fights than this place. The subject driven forums have very few problems, and little strife.

That's my experience, anyway.

[""]

:)

[Annabel Lee]

from what I remember on staff; at one point in time, user notes were placed on members and visible to staff only. the notes appeared on every post the user made. seemed to be a mark on members.. bad idea

Agreed, they are a very bad idea.

There was a big problem with usernotes, a year or two ago.
It seems LeeD is taking the site backwards.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Well reading about the other changes it seems like we're going 50 steps back into pre 7/7/7 atmosphere here. Oh joy. ( And do I have to mention the new "private" reports and infraction rules to further prove my point. No I do not think so. I guess the old guard got its way..)

Thanks Lee. Thanks alot. Its sad that my fears and reservations about these changes where confirmed. I know now Lee you do not have the membership's good at heart. Any confidence I did have you is shot. And so are alot of other people's I can assure you.

I do want to mention my comments are in regards to the actions of Lee concerning these new changes and are not a comment on Lee himself. There is a difference. I hope a certain person who thought differently will understand.

[BlazeLight]

I am very, very angry about this.

I will not dress it up as anything, I don't like it.

On my profile I see an age-old warning for a post when I made a joke in bad taste because I had an off-day. I feel like I am marked.

Notes on users sounds a bit unforgiving if you ask me. I don't like the idea about saying someone is a troublemaker or anti-Christian or whatever even if they can see and report it.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Sorry we had private reports and private this and while we didn't have user notes we had private staff areas where people targeted members based on information that you would have in User notes.

That is NOT positive.

And I see people couldn't report my post fast enough. My, my, my aren't we fast clicking the "Report" button aren't we whomever you are. I guess people feel dissent should be silenced.

[BlazeLight]

Again, Records and Resources is still in the process of purging old records, please be patient while they work on that.
Also, user notes will NOT contain anything besides FACT. No commentary, no opinions, no gossip will be tolerated.
Good.

But still don't like the idea of usernotes.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

I just saw my profile..

This new change is disgusting. I don't even know where some of these warnings are from because I was never notified of them. All this gathering of information for a list of what bad things people have done sounds very gestapo-ish to me

[Tangeloper]

I just saw my profile..

This new change is disgusting. I don't even know where some of these warnings are from because I was never notified of them. All this gathering of information for a list of what bad things people have done sounds very gestapo-ish to me

MNPhysicist has already stated in another thread that the placing of notes on the profile page is being looked into. This is a "DEFAULT" position within the system itself, and will need to be worked on by our coding experts who already have a LOT on their plates at the moment. Also, no-one is going through "gathering" things together on members.

[Stormy]

You really don't get it?

I do not want notes kept on me.. period!

Good..bad.. or indifferent! Just don't want them!

[RED that's ME]

In the past, very few members had them. I don't think there were even 50 people who had them, prolly less than 25 here versus the thousands of members here. User notes helps staff to moderate better IMO.
The ones I saw were kept short and to the facts. As said previously, it usually has to note such as FSB's (forum specific bans) to help staff members see if a person was/wasn't suppose to be posting in a certain forum or not during the FSB's. It had basic facts such as.... FSB from (list forum/date from-to)
Sometimes there were members who were asked to put another member on ignore cause of constant fighting and it would help staff know in case of any problems arose from it.
As long as the user notes are open for the member to know about, there shouldn't be a problem using them.

General membership post within the rules and don't have any problems with staff members. There's a few no matter what staff say, won't see themselves at fault. If a member has a note posted, then they can discuss it with a staff member and if it was earned then change how they follow the rules so it will eventually be removed.

[Annabel Lee]

25 members? Then what was I doing with one? I had no warnings, yet I had this damned, stupid usernote attached to my profile.

It's like a target on your back. If this forum is going to revert to CF 2003 (the absolute worst year), there will be a lot of problems and the membership isn't going to put up with it.

I realize the new owner is ignorant of CF's past problems, but is there someone who can reason with him?

[snoochface]

25 members? Then what was I doing with one? I had no warnings, yet I had this damned, stupid usernote attached to my profile.

It's like a target on your back. If this forum is going to revert to CF 2003 (the absolute worst year), there will be a lot of problems and the membership isn't going to put up with it.

I realize the new owner is ignorant of CF's past problems, but is there someone who can reason with him?
He's listening to 3 people - his advisers - and seemingly ignoring what the rest of us have to say. The overwhelming support for open reports, and his subsequent privatizing of them, seems to make that pretty clear.

[CFFosterAngel43]

May I please request that you all give us a chance before assuming that these changes are all negative? What some might see as "positives" other might not have... What some might see as "negatives" others might see as positives. Why not give us a chance here and THEN see if these changes are truly positive or negative. The past is the past. We are all attempting to move forward and make this the best site it can be but that includes the cooperation of the members as well not to make assumptions that these things are all negative. You may actually find that once the changes are made and things settle down that there will be LESS strife here than before -- that is the hope of Lee AND the rest of the staff.
We thank you for your continued patience, and for keeping an open-mind during these changes.
Thank you,
Tangeloper
Duchess of Policy

PS -- I know that support staff has split (or is in the middle of splitting) some of the discussions from the other announcement threads that have been closed into new threads within the Wiki/Rules discussion forum. If you all need to vent, or express opinions, etc... You may wish to post on those threads as well. Respectful dialogue and questions are indeed encouraged as we wish to keep everyone well informed, and understanding these changes, however disrespect will not be tolerated. Again, this doesn't mean you are not allowed to express your opinions, just that we all need to remember to do so in a respectful manner.
I totally understand your frustration and as a supportive person whom is administrative minded, though not on admin here, I am keeping all admin in my prayers as it is always difficult to make transitions.

I also agree, it is sometimes best to let the ground work be laid and give it a go to see how it all works before casting judgement on it.

please all know that this is never easy on anyone and CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUING is what the new admin needs from us right now, and not assumptions about what mihgt happen.

I hope that my posts here have been objective and constructive and I think I read in your post where it says it will be facts only, no opinions or gossip, so it still gives me cause to reiterate, are there going to be references to any 'reported posts' or how many times a person has posts that have been 'reported' and if so, will there perhaps be a summary of the overall situation (ie community morale and general board situation at the time of the 'chaos')

I think I can see both good reason for such notes as to sock accounts and all, but I think the fear for the members is 'the unknown' as to what is then going to be done with the information and if there is a conflict between members and any given admin, if the admin will abuse this 'power'.
In my experiences in life, there is not a lot anyone can do when these things come up except lay your struggles in God's hands and know that He is the ultimate one in control. my ability to trust other humans has really taken a toll these last few years and I have gone from a socially active person to a hermit that leaves my house only once every 2 weeks to see a counselor in the last 3 years so I know why some people may have fears and lack of trust in others, and I sympathize, but let us not all jump to generalizations and assumptions before giving the new admin a chance, please.

this site has been a blessing and a cause of stress for me and I am still fairly new and not in any way involved with staff, but I just came here to find freindship and perhaps a new way of trusting people again after my personal struggles have led me to hide in my home, and I really dont know if this is a place we really need to be continuing to tear one another down. I need to be uplifted and edified, and I need to be around like minded persons that also seek truth and goodness in life, not any means to assume the worse. if we all did that, then why bother coming here. and dont tell me it is because you put money into site support. is the loss of a few dollars really worth all the strife and negativity? so put in a grievance and request a way in which to get a refund and in turn willing allow the site to then ban you since you are in such disaccord with the site and go your own ways, otherwise lets try to be positive and uplifting please?

[kiwimac]

I would like to see all the old infractions / notes removed from people's records asap (including mine). They have no relevance to now, moreover, I would not like to see us return to the 'old days' in this matter. The old days weren't that wonderful that we need to go back to them.

[Gwenyfur]

ummm htey'll disappaer as they expire ... at least that's what I was told...

[Letalis]

They never disappear. They just say "Expired."

Unfortunately there's no "mass-delete" for all the infractions/warnings given pre-7/7/7. If it was possible, I would agree that would be best.

[Gwenyfur]

misinformation abounds...
oy vey

[Tangeloper]

It is a technical issue that is being worked on right now... There are problems regarding the expiration of old warnings and how the system is set up, and also in regards to removal which may or may not be possible (which we JUST came to realize). This is not because we wish to mis-inform anyone. It is because what we would LIKE to do doesn't always jive with what is technologically possible.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

It's still not good though that Lee is only listening to 3 people (apparently) and is not giving one thought to the feelings of the membership. The membership is not going to put up with this. This is simply wrong. Just like making reports and things private is wrong. We have people here on both sides of the spectrum (those that supported the 7/7/7 changes and those that did not) who are coming out and saying this is wrong. Why are people being reported the minute a differening opinion gets typed out and posted (which of course we can't defend outselves now either which is also WRONG) and why are the membership not being listened to?!

I'm sorry but I think Lee needs to have advisers who are familiar with the issues pre 7/7/7 and can explain why so many people dislike these new changes. Someone needs to reach him who understands.

I'm with Annabel. This is like having target on your back.

I feel sorry for the reconciliation team. They have quite a job on their hands.

[Gardener101]

May I suggest, in light of what is written below....that we do away with the newly re-introduced warning/infraction way of storing that information in a users homepage or control panel....and instead use member user notes to store all those relevant information?

Otherwise what is the point in having the same thing repeatedly stored and using up bandwitdh? Also, each expired or obsolete (pre 7/7/7) warning/infraction just serves as a bitter reminder of a difficult time and can cause people to go into an anxious, stressful mode. It is not a good thing to see, either on user home pages or on their control panel anyway. So maybe it should be stored in the usernotes and they will be informed of what is stored there about them any time a change is made, and whenever they request an update of whatever is there?

Sounds fair to me :thumbsup:


It is a technical issue that is being worked on right now... There are problems regarding the expiration of old warnings and how the system is set up, and also in regards to removal which may or may not be possible (which we JUST came to realize). This is not because we wish to mis-inform anyone. It is because what we would LIKE to do doesn't always jive with what is technologically possible.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

ummm htey'll disappaer as they expire ... at least that's what I was told...
but the problem is they expire after one year..and the new rules are saying that infractions will expire after 6 mos. The ONE warning i have on my account (and its a WARNING not an INFRACTION that i got..yet its still up on my homepage..i got 7 mos ago and it doesnt EXPIRE for 5 more mos. Why should it be there ..it should already be GONE according to the new system..and YET its right up there SCREAMING at me!)

[Bombila]

It is a technical issue that is being worked on right now... There are problems regarding the expiration of old warnings and how the system is set up, and also in regards to removal which may or may not be possible (which we JUST came to realize). This is not because we wish to mis-inform anyone. It is because what we would LIKE to do doesn't always jive with what is technologically possible.

Wouldn't the sensible and courteous thing to do have been to announce exactly what LeeD would like to do, and why, and then not implement the thing until the tech problems (there are always tech problems) were worked out? This is obviously causing distress to a lot of people, members and staff (like yourself) included.

Because as it stands, whether he is like that or not, LeeD is looking like a a very controlling person who rushes headlong into implementing unpopular and technically problematic changes without for a moment considering the impact they may have on staff and members alike. I'm sure he'd prefer not to look that way, but given he makes a living from running message boards, this ain't performance.

The smiley index has gone way down around these parts.

[ChristianCenturion]

Bears repeating.

I understand the concern that some people are expressing here - but I would like to point you to the Reconciliation team -
Meh
Letalis
BelindaP
ProfessorMom
ParaCristo
HeatherJay
Kiwimac
Sign Of The Fish Burger

and ask - who on this team do you think will for a second allow anything bad to be posted in anyones notes?


Seriously, I couldn't point out the usernames that I would select as not having my trust, being iffy or having a relatively good amount of trust due to my seeing certain actions, opinions, leanings over... what, a couple of years now here. That would be a mess and might even have repercussions (for someone) if I did.

The list above has more than one username that I respect and trust. I suppose that will have to be good enough - one name and a backup in case the one isn't available or whatever.

[Tenebrae]

If the notes can not be removed, I would at least like to see them reversed or made to expire, I have 2 warnings that are current, however under the new system of six months, they should have expired

Also, if they can not be removed, it would be cool if they could be put back on the user CP, at least there, they could be minimsed to we didnt have to look at them. I know only I can see my list, its just really in my face

Thanks muchly

[Zippythepinhead]

Did I miss something?:scratch:

[Lindon Tinuviel]

It's still not good though that Lee is only listening to 3 people (apparently) and is not giving one thought to the feelings of the membership. The membership is not going to put up with this. This is simply wrong. Just like making reports and things private is wrong. We have people here on both sides of the spectrum (those that supported the 7/7/7 changes and those that did not) who are coming out and saying this is wrong. Why are people being reported the minute a differening opinion gets typed out and posted (which of course we can't defend outselves now either which is also WRONG) and why are the membership not being listened to?!

I'm sorry but I think Lee needs to have advisers who are familiar with the issues pre 7/7/7 and can explain why so many people dislike these new changes. Someone needs to reach him who understands.

I'm with Annabel. This is like having target on your back.

I feel sorry for the reconciliation team. They have quite a job on their hands.



People will rant and rave for a bit, then they'll stop. Lee only needs to wait for people to stop talking about it. And they will, eventually.

People who make unpopular decisions can often just hunker down and make themselves scarce until all the talk blows over. Because that's really all people do, they just talk. Before long, they get interested in something else.

So, people here can talk, talk, talk... or they can try to do something about it. Of course, if the Members here choose to do something like stopping donations, they should probably keep in mind that "Foru.ms" doesn't necessarily *have* to be a Christian site.

"ForU"... sounds like it'd make a good eBay-type site.

[snoochface]

People will rant and rave for a bit, then they'll stop. Lee only needs to wait for people to stop talking about it. And they will, eventually.

People who make unpopular decisions can often just hunker down and make themselves scarce until all the talk blows over. Because that's really all people do, they just talk. Before long, they get interested in something else.

That certainly seems to me to be his plan. He mentioned that he wasn't posting in these threads because he was "responding" to sooooo many PMs. Well, the response I got to my PM was.... nothing whatsoever, and to my follow up PM a simple "I'm aware of this" (regarding the overwhelming member support for reports to remain open).

This is not the response one (well, I) would expect from someone willing to listen to and consider the desires of the membership. All this talk is not going to get us anywhere. He's not listening.

[dignitized]

Seriously, I couldn't point out the usernames that I would select as not having my trust, being iffy or having a relatively good amount of trust due to my seeing certain actions, opinions, leanings over... what, a couple of years now here. That would be a mess and might even have repercussions (for someone) if I did.

The list above has more than one username that I respect and trust. I suppose that will have to be good enough - one name and a backup in case the one isn't available or whatever.CC - I'll be honest and I'll be blunt. There is more than one name on that list that belongs to someone I have had serious issues and disagreements with in the past. B UT - that's not at issue here. I trust from experience that not ONE of those names would willingly allow any measure of gossip, nastiness, or vendetta be added to anyones notes. They may have differing views on quite a few issues than I do - but I do not doubt that they would chime in without a seconds hesitation if they saw something that they felt was not above board.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

People will rant and rave for a bit, then they'll stop. Lee only needs to wait for people to stop talking about it. And they will, eventually.

People who make unpopular decisions can often just hunker down and make themselves scarce until all the talk blows over. Because that's really all people do, they just talk. Before long, they get interested in something else.

So, people here can talk, talk, talk... or they can try to do something about it. Of course, if the Members here choose to do something like stopping donations, they should probably keep in mind that "Foru.ms" doesn't necessarily *have* to be a Christian site.

"ForU"... sounds like it'd make a good eBay-type site.
Well I certainly have no intention of supporting this site with any more of my funds and I'm glad that I did not renew my site supporter status by donating another 10 dollars.


Past stopping any donations or talking I honestly do not know what else to do to try to make Lee listen. Do you have any suggestions Lindon? (or anyone for that matter? please make a suggestion..)

I'm afraid snoochface is right. He won't listen. :(

[Mrs.Sidhe]

CC - I'll be honest and I'll be blunt. There is more than one name on that list that belongs to someone I have had serious issues and disagreements with in the past. B UT - that's not at issue here. I trust from experience that not ONE of those names would willingly allow any measure of gossip, nastiness, or vendetta be added to anyones notes. They may have differing views on quite a few issues than I do - but I do not doubt that they would chime in without a seconds hesitation if they saw something that they felt was not above board.
I'm sorry but you listing those names and saying "oh we can trust them" is cold comfort to people who have these things on their profiles and to those who find this completely wrong.

Well at least Lee has done one thing. He's united different people but not in a way he thought he would. By putting in place policies so wrong that hardly anyone can really agree with them.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

I think mine listed a log of my infractions. Some of them have expired (or been reversed) and should be off the record completely. Not sitting there.

Sorry but I don't like the idea of a target being on my back for when I post and then some staff member can go look at my notes to see if I've been a good or a naughty girl in the past or not. (especially when HALF OF THEM DON'T COUNT NOW AND HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING ON THERE!)

[Annabel Lee]

Past stopping any donations or talking I honestly do not know what else to do to try to make Lee listen. Do you have any suggestions Lindon? (or anyone for that matter? please make a suggestion..)

I'm afraid snoochface is right. He won't listen. :(

The staff members could refuse to implement his bad policy decisions. The new owner shouldn't be making them do his dirty work anyway.
It's not fair to the staff and it's certainly not fair to the members.

What's he going to do? Withhold their paychecks?

[Mrs.Sidhe]

The staff members could refuse to implement his bad policy decisions. The new owner shouldn't be making them do his dirty work anyway.
It's not fair to the staff and it's certainly not fair to the members.

What's he going to do? Withhold their paychecks?
There is that. Hopefully some will do just that. :)

(we can only hope)

[Tangeloper]

I would like to repeat what Br. Max said one more time for clarity. Your USER NOTE and your INFRACTION/WARNING LOG are two separate things. If you will notice today old infractions and warnings are no longer in the system. Thank you...

[Lindon Tinuviel]

The staff members could refuse to implement his bad policy decisions. The new owner shouldn't be making them do his dirty work anyway.
It's not fair to the staff and it's certainly not fair to the members.

What's he going to do? Withhold their paychecks?

Yeah, well... we saw how that worked out last time. I always get a kick out of seeing posts from Staffers saying "It broke my heart whenever I had to take someone's Christian icon away" or "I never want to play God again" or some similar nonsense.

What that tells me is that they knew that they were perpetuating abuses, knew they were doing the wrong thing, knew that they were unjustly hurting people, but would rather do all that than have to give up their position.

And now we should just trust them?

[Latreia]

:sigh:

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Yeah. All complaints should go to the Suggestion Box round file.

[snoochface]

Edited.

[Crazy Liz]

In the past, very few members had them. I don't think there were even 50 people who had them, prolly less than 25 here versus the thousands of members here. User notes helps staff to moderate better IMO.
The ones I saw were kept short and to the facts.
Like "This member is a troublemaker?"

[Crazy Liz]

misinformation abounds...
oy vey
It doesn't have to.

If anyone who knows the true facts would post them in public, everyone could read the post, and all interested members could refer to the post(s) containing the true facts.

[Crazy Liz]

How about using the active voice, rather than the passive voice? Please?

That would help us to understand a lot better.

It is a technical issue that is being worked on right now...
Describe the technical bug.

WHO is working it out right now?
There are problems regarding the expiration of old warnings and how the system is set up,
What problems?

WHO can tell us more details about this?
and also in regards to removal which may or may not be possible (which we JUST came to realize). This is not because we wish to mis-inform anyone. It is because what we would LIKE to do doesn't always jive with what is technologically possible.
Please let us know what you know about the technological problems, rather than making vague references.

[Crazy Liz]

The staff members could refuse to implement his bad policy decisions. The new owner shouldn't be making them do his dirty work anyway.
It's not fair to the staff and it's certainly not fair to the members.

What's he going to do? Withhold their paychecks?
Could you PLEASE turn on your reps, Annabel?

[CFFosterAngel43]

Could you PLEASE turn on your reps, Annabel?
just a little FYI, everyone has the choice of expressing reps, many of the reps of this board are 'over exagerated' due to rep 'games' in the BE and others simply choose not to make it a 'status icon. can we please stay on task with the OP here as Tangeloper says? no one is calling anyone a 'trouble maker, no one is trying to get personal, some persons are taking things personal and threfor getting defensive, and none of this is doing any good for the admins to do thier job. again I reiterate, lets try to peacefully and constructively critique the objectives being set before us and stay on task with one subject at a time and if you need to vent, I believe tangeloper also gave a link or place where you can do that also.

thanks,
a concerned member that looks forward to the day we meet in harmony here.
zfawnz

[CFFosterAngel43]

How about using the active voice, rather than the passive voice? Please?

That would help us to understand a lot better.


Describe the technical bug.

WHO is working it out right now?

What problems?

WHO can tell us more details about this?

Please let us know what you know about the technological problems, rather than making vague references.
where is your trust in the Lord, we are all just Humans here, let the Lord do His work through Whom He sees fit and have Faith!!

[CFFosterAngel43]

It doesn't have to.

If anyone who knows the true facts would post them in public, everyone could read the post, and all interested members could refer to the post(s) containing the true facts.
in a state of total transition it takes time for these things to get ironed out and for everyone to even know who is doing what among the admin, so for us to badger them at this time only further slows the process.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

just a little FYI, everyone has the choice of expressing reps, many of the reps of this board are 'over exagerated' due to rep 'games' in the BE and others simply choose not to make it a 'status icon.


I think everyone knows that. Liz was simply applauding Annabel's post.


no one is calling anyone a 'trouble maker


"Troublemaker" has appeared on User Notes in the past.



again I reiterate, lets try to peacefully and constructively critique the objectives being set before us and stay on task with one subject at a time and if you need to vent, I believe tangeloper also gave a link or place where you can do that also.


This is evidently the designated place for exactly that.



where is your trust in the Lord


Well, I see that at least one person here is getting personal.



let the Lord do His work through Whom He sees fit and have Faith!!


Whatever you may think to the contrary, what's going on now ain't God's work.



in a state of total transition it takes time for these things to get ironed out and for everyone to even know who is doing what among the admin, so for us to badger them at this time only further slows the process.


God forbid that people know what's going on!

[Mrs.Sidhe]

where is your trust in the Lord, we are all just Humans here, let the Lord do His work through Whom He sees fit and have Faith!!

No offense but these are valid questions that as members we deserve answers to and we deserve them now (or ASAP). Not whenever someone feels like it.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

just a little FYI, everyone has the choice of expressing reps, many of the reps of this board are 'over exagerated' due to rep 'games' in the BE and others simply choose not to make it a 'status icon. can we please stay on task with the OP here as Tangeloper says? no one is calling anyone a 'trouble maker, no one is trying to get personal, some persons are taking things personal and threfor getting defensive, and none of this is doing any good for the admins to do thier job. again I reiterate, lets try to peacefully and constructively critique the objectives being set before us and stay on task with one subject at a time and if you need to vent, I believe tangeloper also gave a link or place where you can do that also.

thanks,
a concerned member that looks forward to the day we meet in harmony here.
zfawnz
People aren't being deemed trouble makers? Then why bring back user notes so staff can see who's naughty and who's nice?

I suppose I wasn't being marked a trouble maker when my first post about this (and I can personally guess who reported me) was reported in 2 minutes flat and then most of the posts in here that have a dissenting opinion about these changes get moved to some phony-baloney "discussion" thread where we can discuss but "disrespect" will not be tolerated (and God knows what the new staff deems as disrespect. From what I've seen its anything that dissents.

I've tried to have "faith" in staff and in this site before. For the most part (except a few months ago) I was disappointed. Not only am I disaapointed now I am somewhat disturbed by the new trend. And I am very disturbed that Lee and other staff does not deem it necessary to answer questions and try to explain things or at least alleviate people's fears.

And please don't mention the Lord here. This site has nothing to do with Him (especially not anymore--if it ever did).

In short please don't try to censor people from voicing their opinion. We have a right to do so.

[arborvita]

If I may the way that user notes are being rolled out this time to the staff and the use of the them is to be only factual. Meaning "trouble maker" should not be posted in the user notes. Also the way I read it now members can ask for a copy every month if they wished to see what there user notes looked like. This really isnt anything that should cause anyone to be upset.

[dignitized]

So I'll have to search through the forums to find a post that lists who will be on the reconciliation team?

They aren't making anything easy for anyone (except themselves), are they?Dawn - bad form. :( We just went through a serious upheaval of this site less than 4 months after the previous serious upheaval - and all things considered - rather quickly. SO . . . lets give them til tomorrow at least before we start lining them up in front of the guillotine. ;)

[A New Dawn]

Dawn - bad form. :( We just went through a serious upheaval of this site less than 4 months after the previous serious upheaval - and all things considered - rather quickly. SO . . . lets give them til tomorrow at least before we start lining them up in front of the guillotine. ;)

Gee, Max, I don't recall you being so magnanimous when you didn't agree with the policies. :doh:

[dignitized]

Dawn - nobody is perfect - least of all ME!

[edb19]

This user note thing seems pretty scary to me. Exactly what is going into this? Only formal warnings and infractions or can any staff member write in anything they like? How would one go about gettting redress on something that was unfairly or written with bias?

How does one formally request to see their user notes and how often can one request it?

Lisa

me too - so I'll probably do like I did before and not use them (but no one heard me say that)

edie

[Lisa0315]

me too - so I'll probably do like I did before and not use them (but no one heard me say that)

edie

Well, you are a hybrid mod, referee + advocate. Somehow you manage to do both, although I have no idea how.

That is not true for every staff member here...

Lisa

[edb19]

Well, you are a hybrid mod, referee + advocate. Somehow you manage to do both, although I have no idea how.

That is not true for every staff member here...

Lisa


hmmm - I never thought of that and I take it as quite a compliment. Thank you so much:hug:

[Lisa0315]

hmmm - I never thought of that and I take it as quite a compliment. Thank you so much:hug:

Please do. That is how it was intended. It was something I struggled with. I was definitely an Advocate/Protector in a world of Referees.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

How it has been presented to me is that this is the information can only be factual information. EX. Sock account is 1234. FSB issued on 12/1/07, etc.

There is to be not commentary that does not pertain to the rules violations and actions taken.

A member can request at anytime a copy of their user notes. If there is something on there that the member finds objectionable they can contact the reconciliation team and have it looked it to.

I hope this helps.

God Bless,

AV

Thanks. It just seems a bit strange to me. I mean at the very least add coding so every member can see their own notes all the time.

Lisa

[dignitized]

There really is no need - unless you trust NO ONE on staff . . . .

[Glass*Soul]

There really is no need - unless you trust NO ONE on staff . . . .

You bring up an interesting point.

When I look at the reconcilliation team list, there are several people on there that I have a decent amount of knowledge of and can say that I trust fairly well.

However, with all of the staff forums hidden, the reports hidden and a good deal of the clarifying communication forced to go to PM's, we have lost our reference points for knowing whom we can and cannot trust. People will begin to look for those reference points wherever they can find them, and so conversations elsewhere, rumors, forwarded PM's and information leaks will fill the void. A certain amount of suspicion and paranoia will develop and a good deal of trust stands to be lost, and not always fairly.

There has to be some middle ground between chaos and fully battened down hatches. It seems to me it would be wise to look for it.

[dignitized]

Glass - there are many on staff who would agree with that post. We do what we can when we can.

[Glass*Soul]

Glass - there are many on staff who would agree with that post. We do what we can when we can.

I appreciate that.

I wish I were in a position to appreciate it even more fully. :(

[Lindon Tinuviel]

There really is no need - unless you trust NO ONE on staff . . . .

Nobody who does their work in secret can be trusted.

I thought that was self-evident.

[Annabel Lee]

Glass - there are many on staff who would agree with that post. We do what we can when we can.

Has anyone tried talking some sense to the new owner?

[snoochface]

Has anyone tried talking some sense to the new owner?
I have. I know I don't count for crap to him, I'm not staff, I'm not a trusted advisor (who he also seems to ignore, but whatever), I'm just a regular joe member, but I've sent him PMs asking him to focus on what the members want, what the history of secrecy is here, etc. He either doesn't respond at all or makes one-line responses that he is aware and too busy to bother responding in these threads.

I have no trust in him at all.

[synger]

Nobody who does their work in secret can be trusted.

I thought that was self-evident.
I think part of the problem is that "secret" is relative.

To a member, everything that staff does that's not in a PM to them or in a public thread is secret. It's all pretty much a mystery.
To a moderator, everything that admins and above do in their restricted forums is secret. We see the outcome, but don't see the process by which they come to their conclusions.
To an admin, what the SuperAs discuss in their restricted forum is secret.
It's much easier to go from more secretive to more open, than to try to go "back" to more secretive again. It can be very frustrating not only for members, but for staff.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Nah, any process that can't be observed and corrected by those who are affected by it is a secret.

Anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable, no matter their character or intent.

[ChristianCenturion]

Nah, any process that can't be observed and corrected by those who are affected by it is a secret.

Anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable, no matter their character or intent.

Sorta gives a whole new dimension/condemnation for giving, prayer, charitable work, fasting, etc., but it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

But I don't share it. :|

[Lisa0315]

Me neither, when I was on staff, it was something I asked for repeatedly. Not to gossip about someone, but to keep up with people who has FSB going for each sub-forum, and for the people that have multiple socks. When you have a forum of this size, it is hard to keep up with each FSB. And with amount of membership, it is every easy for someone who wants to cause difficulty to make several socks and just rotate through them(it has happened!). Most of the time staff does not want the UN to unfairly "label" a member. They really are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

You say it well...Most of the time...It is the "other" part of the time that has me concerned.

I know MOST of staff are not into games and payback. Again, it is the accountability of ALL staff that is the concern.

Lisa

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Sorta gives a whole new dimension/condemnation for giving, prayer, charitable work, fasting, etc., but it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

But I don't share it. :|

You know perfectly well that's not what I was talking about.

[RN4CHRIST]

You say it well...Most of the time...It is the "other" part of the time that has me concerned.

I know MOST of staff are not into games and payback. Again, it is the accountability of ALL staff that is the concern.

Lisa
Yes, but we can see that the User Notes in the reciprical. MOST members here don't need to worry about usernotes, because they are not going to break the rules anyway. Look around, there are ALOT of members on this site, and the vast majority are not having a problem, and if they do, it is a minor problem solved simply with a PM. It is a few members(AND I AM NOT POINTING ANY FINGERS, JUST TAKING NOTICE) that do cause trouble, do make things difficult for the moderators. They are the ones who will see the majority of the User Note usage. If you are wondering if you have a User Note, all you will have to do is ask.

[RN4CHRIST]

Lisa, I hope that did not sound judgmental. I really am just trying to let everyone see both sides of the coin. I don't know you, but as a fellow Child of God, I do love you! So please do not take that personally!!(((((HUGS)))))

[A New Dawn]

You say it well...Most of the time...It is the "other" part of the time that has me concerned.

I know MOST of staff are not into games and payback. Again, it is the accountability of ALL staff that is the concern.

Lisa

I think that when former staff who used them have no problem with their continued usage, it should be a signal that they were not misused, except for the rare instance or two. There were only general guidelines, before, governing their usage (and there were minimal problems), but now it appears to be spelled out in policy, so I see no problem with them being used again.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

It is a few members(AND I AM NOT POINTING ANY FINGERS, JUST TAKING NOTICE) that do cause trouble, do make things difficult for the moderators. They are the ones who will see the majority of the User Note usage.

Just want to state that the point of a messageboard, of any online community, has little to do with not making things difficult for the Staff. The community revolves, always, around the Members.

When boards move away from that model, they schism and die.

[ChristianCenturion]

Just want to state that the point of a messageboard, of any online community, has little to do with not making things difficult for the Staff. The community revolves, always, around the Members.

When boards move away from that model, they schism and die.

Staff are also members.

[RN4CHRIST]

Really, CC has a point. That was one of the biggest obstacles that I came across when I was staff. The members forgot that I was a member too! I love to post in the BE and I fellowshipped with other parents. They may have more access to certain parts of the board. But they are members too!

[RN4CHRIST]

??It doubled my post??

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Really, CC has a point. That was one of the biggest obstacles that I came across when I was staff. The members forgot that I was a member too! I love to post in the BE and I fellowshipped with other parents. They may have more access to certain parts of the board. But they are members too!

No, CC does not.

Staff are Members, yes, but only a subset. And, frankly, having people forget that you are a Member, too, is an occupational hazard once you pin on that shiny badge--when's the last time you saw a uniformed policeman and said, "Hey! Look at that well-dressed citizen!"?

[RN4CHRIST]

No, CC does not. CC has been trying to pick a fight.

Staff are Members, yes, but only a subset. And, frankly, having people forget that you are a Member, too, is an occupational hazard once you pin on that shiny badge--when's the last time you saw a uniformed policeman and said, "Hey! Look at that well-dressed citizen!"?
hehe, sorry. That was kinda funny. As an ER nurse I have alot of good friends that are uniformed police officers. I just see them as Joe and Bob. We treat each other with respect, because that is what we should do. I know that I cannot go into the police precinct and see all of the undercover work that he does to protect me and the rest of the city. He knows he cannot come into the ER and look at charts of people that he is curious about. We both keep records and they are private. There are alot of records that are out there about us. The internet keeps them, the bank keeps them, the doctor keeps them, the credit agencies keep them. Just part of life, I guess.

Sorry for the ramble!

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Oh! Very nice segue! Now we're back on topic. :)

:applause:

[Rochir]

Has anyone tried talking some sense to the new owner?

Why?

This is one of how many sites he owns! ONE OF MANY!!!!

WHY should he care for this site? Tell me?:scratch:

[Rochir]

Back to user notes ...................... I don't have a problem with them.

If they are NOT misused for harrassment - I don't have either!

Alas, in the past, abuse of user notes was quite common as far as I know!:|

[ChristianCenturion]

No, CC does not. CC has been trying to pick a fight.


Please, there is no reason to make guesses about "my" intent - especially when I am capable of clarifying.

I will be happy to review my posts and clear up any possible misunderstanding(s).

Nah, any process that can't be observed and corrected by those who are affected by it is a secret.

Anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable, no matter their character or intent.

^ I understand the context of this thread.
However, the statement above still read pretty absolute or over-generalized and would run the hazard of ignoring any sort of 'other' considerations that might affect a combination of work that is not public and trust.

Thus, I attempted to bring to mind something that was intended to be 'thought provoking'... as in spur instances where non-public actions and trust do exist and/or are not necessarily untrustworthy.

My post:
Sorta gives a whole new dimension/condemnation for giving, prayer, charitable work, fasting, etc., but it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

But I don't share it. :|

I could have also mentioned innocent until proven guilty, serving the whole vs. the one (or the other way around) sometimes has debatable results or something else, but the general idea of the action deserves consideration in regards to trust or being a benefit would still be there.



Staff are Members, yes, but only a subset. And, frankly, having people forget that you are a Member, too, is an occupational hazard once you pin on that shiny badge--when's the last time you saw a uniformed policeman and said, "Hey! Look at that well-dressed citizen!"?

I can continue:


Just want to state that the point of a messageboard, of any online community, has little to do with not making things difficult for the Staff. The community revolves, always, around the Members.

When boards move away from that model, they schism and die.

Staff are also members.

"My" intent was to again spur consideration that other factors might be involved... such as, the forum shouldn't over-burden those who volunteer and are members who's purpose is to serve the whole.

I could have also gone on to venture an example that might help i.e. that detectives do not wear uniform, that even uniformed police officers have an "off-duty" status, that counselors and volunteers are just citizens that happen to be driven to serve and so on.



I'll be happy to clarify more on my intent if needed and I would ask that guessing be kept at a minimum - for everyone's sake.

But I believe that the above should clear up any misconceptions or any failure to articulate what was intended by my posting.

[Lisa0315]

LOL! I thought CC stood for Conservative Christians. I was being SUCH a good girl, or so I thought. ^_^

Lisa

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Please, there is no reason to make guesses about "my" intent - especially when I am capable of clarifying.

I will be happy to review my posts and clear up any possible misunderstanding(s).



^ I understand the context of this thread.
However, the statement above still read pretty absolute or over-generalized and would run the hazard of ignoring any sort of 'other' considerations that might affect a combination of work that is not public and trust.

Thus, I attempted to bring to mind something that was intended to be 'thought provoking'... as in spur instances where non-public actions and trust do exist and/or are not necessarily untrustworthy.

My post:


I could have also mentioned innocent until proven guilty, serving the whole vs. the one (or the other way around) sometimes has debatable results or something else, but the general idea of the action deserves consideration in regards to trust or being a benefit would still be there.



I can continue:



"My" intent was to again spur consideration that other factors might be involved... such as, the forum shouldn't over-burden those who volunteer and are members who's purpose is to serve the whole.

I could have also gone on to venture an example that might help i.e. that detectives do not wear uniform, that even uniformed police officers have an "off-duty" status, that counselors and volunteers are just citizens that happen to be driven to serve and so on.



I'll be happy to clarify more on my intent if needed and I would ask that guessing be kept at a minimum - for everyone's sake.

But I believe that the above should clear up any misconceptions or any failure to articulate what was intended by my posting.


I don't care, and I doubt that you do, either.

[3girls2dogs]

Nah, any process that can't be observed and corrected by those who are affected by it is a secret.

Anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable, no matter their character or intent.
That just isn't true. I certainly want my husband's Commanding Officers keeping the movement of their troops secret, as well as their plans for any battles, and I trust in their ability to keep these things quiet so that they may further ensure my husband's (and his fellow Marines') safety.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

That just isn't true. I certainly want my husband's Commanding Officers keeping the movement of their troops secret, as well as their plans for any battles, and I trust in their ability to keep these things quiet so that they may further ensure my husband's (and his fellow Marines') safety.

We're at war then, you and I? Staff against Members, is it?

[3girls2dogs]

We're at war then, you and I? Staff against Members, is it?

No, not at all. You just said that NO ONE who does their work in secret can be trusted, and I disagree. Sometimes the ability to go through things in secret is necessary.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Necessary on a messageboard? I would suggest that the discussion has a scope which does not extend to wars, criminal activity, or hostile corporate takeovers.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

[A New Dawn]

If they are NOT misused for harrassment - I don't have either!

Alas, in the past, abuse of user notes was quite common as far as I know!:|

Then you "know" incorrectly. There was minimal abuse of the notes in the past.

[3girls2dogs]

Originally Posted by Lindon Tinuviel http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40688172#post40688172)
Nah, any process that can't be observed and corrected by those who are affected by it is a secret.

Anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable, no matter their character or intent.


Nowhere in your post are you specifying that you mean here on this bulletin board. I am going by what you said in this quote. You said anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable. Heck, I have Federal Budgets I work on that I have to keep confidential. By what you said up there, I'm untrustworthy as well.

When push comes to shove, no matter how much anyone rails against it, if people want to have discussions about members in secret, they will still do it, whether by MSN, AIM, phone call or PM. Do you really, honestly think that making all sections of this board open stopped that, or will stop that? Really?

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Nowhere in your post are you specifying that you mean here on this bulletin board. I am going by what you said in this quote. You said anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable. Heck, I have Federal Budgets I work on that I have to keep confidential. By what you said up there, I'm untrustworthy as well.


My point, directed at both you and CC, is that my comments were made specifically in the context of the management of this messageboard.

To probe outside that scope, looking for some case where my comments might be proven false, is obfuscation at best and deceit at worst.



When push comes to shove, no matter how much anyone rails against it, if people want to have discussions about members in secret, they will still do it, whether by MSN, AIM, phone call or PM. Do you really, honestly think that making all sections of this board open stopped that, or will stop that? Really?

Not at all, but that's not the point. The point is that the actual day-to-day mechanics are hidden.

You all can gossip to your little hearts' contents if you want, and it really isn't important--but what you state as your reasoning for giving this infraction or banning that Member or enacting these rules or rejecting those procedures is important.

THAT needs to be wide open with a 200-watt bulb shining on it.

[dignitized]

Then you "know" incorrectly. There was minimal abuse of the notes in the past. I can verify this statement. I'm one who is all for people being able to see their "records" and they will be available to members and there are plenty of people who will be safeguarding the membership in regards to member notes.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

No, not at all. You just said that NO ONE who does their work in secret can be trusted, and I disagree. Sometimes the ability to go through things in secret is necessary.

Why is it necessary? Why does it seem that so many on staff so afraid of things being done in public? What exactly is better done in secret and behind people's back where no one can comment about what's going on?

Its only because what would be going on would be looked at as wrong and staff wants to hide. If everything is kosher than no one should have a problem with things being out in the open.

[ravenscape]

Why is it necessary? Why is everyone on staff so afraid of things being done in public? What exactly is better done in secret and behind people's back where no one can comment about what's going on?

Its only because what would be going on would be looked at as wrong and staff wants to hide. If everything is kosher than no one should have a problem with things being out in the open.

Why on earth would you think that everyone on staff is afraid of things being done in public? It's pretty clear from the earlier polls and from posts in these threads that a majority of staff want more transparency.

There is no wiki.

Neither members nor staff are making the rules at this point.

[Lisa0315]

Why on earth would you think that everyone on staff is afraid of things being done in public? It's pretty clear from the earlier polls and from posts in these threads that a majority of staff want more transparency.

There is no wiki.

Neither members nor staff are making the rules at this point.

I absolutely believe YOU, Raven, but I don't think that your integrity is found in ALL staff. I know that most of staff was against invisibility. I know that it was not a staff decision. However, SOME are taking advantage of it. That is a fact. There are things that are going on that no staff member would have DARED do if they did not have secrecy and complete autonomy.

Lisa

[ravenscape]

I absolutely believe YOU, Raven, but I don't think that your integrity is found in ALL staff. I know that most of staff was against invisibility. I know that it was not a staff decision. However, SOME are taking advantage of it. That is a fact. There are things that are going on that no staff member would have DARED do if they did not have secrecy and complete autonomy.

Lisa
Then, use the system and see if it works. Take these actions that should not be happening to the reconciliation team, and let that team shine some light into any dark corners.

The rules and protocols are so new, it's too early to call them a total failure. But, it's not too early to find the weaknesses in the system and strengthen them.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I agree with Raven. I'd like to see, even peripherally, how the equally shadowy RT responds.

Additionally, Miss Lisa, I notice that those participating in these threads are The Usual Suspects. Might be nice to get some new blood and fresh insights. Would you mind inviting some of those involved in the things you mentioned?

[Lisa0315]

I agree with Raven. I'd like to see, even peripherally, how the equally shadowy RT responds.

Additionally, Miss Lisa, I notice that those participating in these threads are The Usual Suspects. Might be nice to get some new blood and fresh insights. Would you mind inviting some of those involved in the things you mentioned?

Already did that. Most people are scared to talk about anything except lolcats and chocolate.

The smart folks are flying low under the radar and waiting to see what will happen. Those of us "Peters" are in here boldly questioning things and will probably get infractioned until we get banned for doing so.

I think the whole thing is stupid. I am an American Citizen, and I don't quite know how to not voice my opinion about anything.

Lisa

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I knew I liked you for some reason :D

[Lisa0315]

I knew I liked you for some reason :D

Like you too!

It doesn't help that I have been spending time at <gasp> THE PLACE THAT MUST NOT BE NAMED! They got FREEDOM OF SPEECH ~elsewhere~.

Lisa

[A New Dawn]

I agree with Raven. I'd like to see, even peripherally, how the equally shadowy RT responds.

Additionally, Miss Lisa, I notice that those participating in these threads are The Usual Suspects. Might be nice to get some new blood and fresh insights. Would you mind inviting some of those involved in the things you mentioned?

Yada, Yada, Yada.

Sorry, when you start going on about "the usual suspects", and others start talking about how only Raven is trustworthy, etc., etc., that is all I hear. Not all of us approve of what is going on, or are lying, as is continually implied, so I'd appreciate that you keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.

Thanks.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Yada, Yada, Yada.

Sorry, when you start going on about "the usual suspects", and others start talking about how only Raven is trustworthy, etc., etc., that is all I hear. Not all of us approve of what is going on, or are lying, as is continually implied, so I'd appreciate that you keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.

Thanks.


Do me a favor, Dawn. Learn to read.

[A New Dawn]

double post

[MrJim]

Already did that. Most people are scared to talk about anything except lolcats and chocolate.

The smart folks are flying low under the radar and waiting to see what will happen. Those of us "Peters" are in here boldly questioning things and will probably get infractioned until we get banned for doing so.

I think the whole thing is stupid. I am an American Citizen, and I don't quite know how to not voice my opinion about anything.

Lisa

I'm one trying to fly a bit under the radar under the new "guideline" rulz whatever~trying to keep an optimistic outlook~got home late tonight, went to the Catacombs thread, and it doesn't exist anymore, not just closed but "poof". Asked around but no real good answers~obviously the glorious staff couldn't deal with any individuals so once again took the easy route and just silenced an entire group a la CCC.

I used to think folks like Time & NewGuy were a little radical in their talk about being silenced & stepped on, but looks like I was wrong. A lot of great folks have left, and more will go or be silenced. But that really is the desired result, isn't it. You'd rather have a forum of 11-15 y/o's chatting about britney and braces and boys~they're easier to handle and deal with, and that doesn't require any real work.

I feel like this is a wasted post, who really cares ...

Hoped new management woulda changed things~looks like he doesn't care about anything but making it easy; welcome to the Corporate approach to running 4U...

[Lisa0315]

I'm one trying to fly a bit under the radar under the new "guideline" rulz whatever~trying to keep an optimistic outlook~got home late tonight, went to the Catacombs thread, and it doesn't exist anymore, not just closed but "poof". Asked around but no real good answers~obviously the glorious staff couldn't deal with any individuals so once again took the easy route and just silenced an entire group a la CCC.

I used to think folks like Time & NewGuy were a little radical in their talk about being silenced & stepped on, but looks like I was wrong. A lot of great folks have left, and more will go or be silenced. But that really is the desired result, isn't it. You'd rather have a forum of 11-15 y/o's chatting about britney and braces and boys~they're easier to handle and deal with, and that doesn't require any real work.

I feel like this is a wasted post, who really cares ...

Hoped new management woulda changed things~looks like he doesn't care about anything but making it easy; welcome to the Corporate approach to running 4U...

Dang, Jim! :clap:

Lisa

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Why on earth would you think that everyone on staff is afraid of things being done in public? It's pretty clear from the earlier polls and from posts in these threads that a majority of staff want more transparency.

There is no wiki.

Neither members nor staff are making the rules at this point.

I more ment (and should have said) that some staff members seem a little to gungho about how much they like the new secret reports and appeals and user notes and one (on your team I may add) has clearly stated that they think some things being done in secret is necessary. And honestly I haven't heard a lot of staff come out against the new private reports/appeals. (Maybe this is being said but not here) Less of them have come out against user notes.

Frankly, its not necessary to be done in secrecy.

I will however edit my post to reflect a clearer meaning.

Its shameful that now we only have one person on high making rules and when he does it he goes into hiding and completely disappoints the membership and doesn't even have the guts to make himself available and publicly defend his decisions or at least explain.

[sk8Joyful]

Originally Posted by Lisa0315 http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40665055#post40665055)
Well, you are a hybrid mod, referee + advocate. Somehow you manage to do both,
although I have no idea how.
That is not true for every staff member here...


hmmm - I never thought of that and I take it as quite a compliment.
Thank you so much:hug:

Hi ~
Like I suggested in my Rep-note to you :) Did you ever know *Bevlina*? 1 of the best-mods here :thumbsup:

Pattern yourself after her, and you will do an Excellent :angel: job.

Annie :wave:

[edb19]

Originally Posted by Lisa0315 http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40665055#post40665055)
Well, you are a hybrid mod, referee + advocate. Somehow you manage to do both,
although I have no idea how.
That is not true for every staff member here...



Hi ~
Like I suggested in my Rep-note to you :) Did you ever know *Bevlina*? 1 of the best-mods here :thumbsup:

Pattern yourself after her, and you will do an Excellent :angel: job.

Annie :wave:

I don't think I've encountered Bevlina. Might search out her posts though - get a feel for her style.

Thanks for the reps too - greatly appreciated, as is your guidance.

edie

[sk8Joyful]

Nobody
who does their work in secret can be trusted.
I thought that was self-evident.


Nah, any process that can't be observed and corrected by those who are affected by it is a secret.
Anybody who does their work in secret is not trustable, no matter their character or intent.

Hello :)
Absolute, & overgeneralized, words like "anybody, & nobody" are understood as Language-violations,
because no room is left -
for such of us who, safely, in matters of Character & Intent & workmanship :thumbsup: can be *trusted*,
with further minimal instructions.

Annie :wave:

[Lindon Tinuviel]

There is no such thing as a "language violation", but we can take that up elsewhere.

No, you can't be trusted. Not if you work under the cloak of darkness.

And if you think that you need no correction, that would make you the worst of the lot.


ETA: It's no fair editing a point after it's been replied to.

[A New Dawn]

Do me a favor, Dawn. Learn to read.

Sorry, those were the words you always used for those of us who were on staff, or who supported the rules and policies. Since some of us are here posting in the thread in support of this one thing, it seemed you were talking about us again. Maybe if you clarified, you have been a bit unclear in many of your postings here today............

[Lindon Tinuviel]

What do you mean those are the words I always used?

Do I know you from somewhere else?

[Tangeloper]

Well, I for one resent the implication that by working within a private system somehow impugns my character. There are many a forum on the internet that moderate in private and there is nothing wrong with that system either. In fact, this is the ONLY forum I have been a member of that the reports were public at any time. Honestly, in my personal opinion I see a private system as better for everyone involved as it cuts down on gossip and spite reporting between members that are involved in a heated situation... Others are of course free to disagree with my viewpoint, and I am not the one making the rules -- only explaining them... But, we have the system we have and people have to learn to live with that one way or another...
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that this is a private website. We are all here, members & staff at the pleasure of LeeD. And we need to respect that fact that he is free to do with this site what he wants to do... It's not a pure democracy or anything of the sort obviously.

[arborvita]

Nvm

[chaoschristian]

Well, I for one resent the implication that by working within a private system somehow impugns my character. There are many a forum on the internet that moderate in private and there is nothing wrong with that system either. In fact, this is the ONLY forum I have been a member of that the reports were public at any time. Honestly, in my personal opinion I see a private system as better for everyone involved as it cuts down on gossip and spite reporting between members that are involved in a heated situation... Others are of course free to disagree with my viewpoint, and I am not the one making the rules -- only explaining them... But, we have the system we have and people have to learn to live with that one way or another...
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that this is a private website. We are all here, members & staff at the pleasure of LeeD. And we need to respect that fact that he is free to do with this site what he wants to do... It's not a pure democracy or anything of the sort obviously.

It's not about you, it's about the system. Even the best intended people can and will commit acts of evil within a system that allows and/or promotes such acts.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist, as the old line goes.

[A New Dawn]

It's not about you, it's about the system. Even the best intended people can and will commit acts of evil within a system that allows and/or promotes such acts.

No, they won't. Only those already inclined to act that way will do such a thing. I resent you even implying otherwise.

[A New Dawn]

What do you mean those are the words I always used?

Do I know you from somewhere else?

Only from when I was on staff and you made those comments about staff.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Only from when I was on staff and you made those comments about staff.

Which comments? Show me.

[arborvita]

Why is that there are members on this board who post no where but in the discuss rules areas and fuss about and against every rule because everything is a conspiracy. When in reality they themselves have no actual or very limited interaction in the board but to discuss rules. That seems pretty secretive to me. The question then rises who is the one hiding secrets?

[Rochir]

I can verify this statement. I'm one who is all for people being able to see their "records" and they will be available to members and there are plenty of people who will be safeguarding the membership in regards to member notes.

Who are these people?:scratch:

[Redeemed_Warrior]

Who are these people?:scratch:
I would say the Jedi order..

except Mace Window left Cf staff :P



as a note I never saw any note abuse in my multiple terms onstaff .

why be on staff once.. when ya can go and come back like Rocky balboa ;)

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Why is that there are members on this board who post no where but in the discuss rules areas and fuss about and against every rule because everything is a conspiracy. When in reality they themselves have no actual or very limited interaction in the board but to discuss rules. That seems pretty secretive to me. The question then rises who is the one hiding secrets?

Personally, Friend, I'm in the Support areas most often for three reasons:

1. As a professional writer and armchair linguist, the Writers' Guild and the Linguistics and Etymology forums are my favorite places here. But... they don't get a whole lotta traffic.

2. I'm intrigued by processes and procedures. I enjoy watching them in action, and I enjoy tweaking them. I'm also a computer programmer--x86 Assembly, to be precise--and gates fascinate me. And, Or, Xor, whatever... good stuff there.

3. As a combination of the above two points, I have developed a deep and abiding dislike for mechanical rules that grind up human beings. People don't belong in molds or in sanders. Just as you cannot use a band saw to make a clean cut in human flesh (as I discovered the first time I lost a finger), the human spirit and intellect are not best shaped by excess conformity.

Satisfied?

[Rochir]

I would say the Jedi order..

except Mace Window left Cf staff :P



as a note I never saw any note abuse in my multiple terms onstaff .

why be on staff once.. when ya can go and come back like Rocky balboa ;)

W00T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

[arborvita]

Personally, Friend, I'm in the Support areas most often for three reasons:

1. As a professional writer and armchair linguist, the Writers' Guild and the Linguistics and Etymology forums are my favorite places here. But... they don't get a whole lotta traffic.

2. I'm intrigued by processes and procedures. I enjoy watching them in action, and I enjoy tweaking them. I'm also a computer programmer--x86 Assembly, to be precise--and gates fascinate me. And, Or, Xor, whatever... good stuff there.

3. As a combination of the above two points, I have developed a deep and abiding dislike for mechanical rules that grind up human beings. People don't belong in molds or in sanders. Just as you cannot use a band saw to make a clean cut in human flesh (as I discovered the first time I lost a finger), the human spirit and intellect are not best shaped by excess conformity.

Satisfied?
I would totally rep you right now if you had your reps on. Sorry about the loss of your finger. Why arent you on staff again?

[Rochir]

I would say the Jedi order..

except Mace Window left Cf staff :P

And heh - I still have an account on a SW MB by the name of "Mace WinduWiper":ebil:

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I would totally rep you right now if you had your reps on. Sorry about the loss of your finger. Why arent you on staff again?

:)

So far, I still have all 10. It seems that fingers can be sewn back on fairly easily. But if you have any kids taking 8th-grade woodshop, make sure they understand that sawing wood and thinking about girls is not a good combination.

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't think that too many people object to using them, but it's that last that part that "whatever they want to note" part that sticks in some peoples' craws.

Just to refresh, we have been assured that only factual information (known socks, infractions, ban date) will be added, and that we can get a copy of our User Notes upon request.Ok... but so, David, why is this thread such a behemoth? It all seems pretty benign.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Because there're underlying problems that are being addressed here, as well as in countless other threads. There is no thread about these substrate issues, so peoples' concerns are popping to the surface in tangential discussions like this one.

[GreenMunchkin]

Ah, it's mishmashy. Such is the way of CF :)

[chaoschristian]

No, they won't. Only those already inclined to act that way will do such a thing. I resent you even implying otherwise.

Resent all you want, AND, it's an observed scientific phenomenon. Not all acts of evil are a direct result of dispositional attitudes only. Social and systemic influences play a major roll in what is allowed, tolerated and/or promoted.

'Good' people will do 'bad' things if the social system they are in promotes that kind of behaviour.

Individuals must still be held accountable to their actions, but that's rather difficult in a closed system.

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Why is that there are members on this board who post no where but in the discuss rules areas and fuss about and against every rule because everything is a conspiracy. When in reality they themselves have no actual or very limited interaction in the board but to discuss rules. That seems pretty secretive to me. The question then rises who is the one hiding secrets?

I would advise against making comments about things you haven't a clue about. Unless you of course you have been checking on everyone's board activity in this thread and if that's the case you're not one to talk about "limited interaction" on the board because that must take up a terrible amount of time.

People discuss rules because as membership we have a right to make comments and voice our opinion and ask questions. Do you suggest a closure to the rules forum? I am here (right now) to try to understand why things are being done the way they are. I'm trying to see why the web site CEO will not face his own membership and personally answer people. I also go on other parts of the forum including STR,WWMC, NCR, E&M, Mental Health, Women's discussion, Parenting, as well as occasional posts in friendship threads.

[snoochface]

I would advise against making comments about things you haven't a clue about. Unless you of course you have been checking on everyone's board activity in this thread and if that's the case you're not one to talk about "limited interaction" on the board because that must take up a terrible amount of time.

People discuss rules because as membership we have a right to make comments and voice our opinion and ask questions. Do you suggest a closure to the rules forum? I am here (right now) to try to understand why things are being done the way they are. I'm trying to see why the web site CEO will not face his own membership and personally answer people. I also go on other parts of the forum including STR,WWMC, NCR, E&M, Mental Health, Women's discussion, Parenting, as well as occasional posts in friendship threads.
Not to mention that if people don't come in here trying to figure out what the Rules of the Day are, they'll have a bit of a problem posting in other sections of the forum without incurring violations.

[sk8Joyful]

Resent all you want, AND, it's an observed scientific phenomenon. Not all acts of evil are a direct result of dispositional attitudes only. Social and systemic influences play a major roll in what is allowed, tolerated and/or promoted.

'Good' people will do 'bad' things if the social system they are in promotes that kind of behaviour.

Individuals must still be held accountable to their actions, but that's rather difficult in a closed system.

GOD, our Heavenly Father, Blessed each of His children with FREE will, ie the will..., in choosing GOOD.

"observed scientific phenomena" - only indicates General statistics

'Good' people are also *individuals* - who can choose not to be a part of prevalent statistics.

'Good' people, as *individuals* can choose to continue :) exercising their will..., in choosing GOOD.

In numerous instances where "social system they are in, promotes bad behaviour" - How many personal examples can you recall :), where from your GOD-Blessed Imprinting you chose making a Difference :thumbsup:, starting with "NO, I will not compromise, nor participate, in ... (whatever); instead I will chose this ..." it seems to me, that us as GOD's children find it compelling, enough for us to behave like this, as we Naturally remember Who's we are. Annie

[A New Dawn]

Resent all you want, AND, it's an observed scientific phenomenon. Not all acts of evil are a direct result of dispositional attitudes only. Social and systemic influences play a major roll in what is allowed, tolerated and/or promoted.

'Good' people will do 'bad' things if the social system they are in promotes that kind of behaviour.

Individuals must still be held accountable to their actions, but that's rather difficult in a closed system.

I still beg to differ. Maybe pseudo-good people will do bad things if the social system they are in promotes it, but your generalized painting with a broad brush is entirely untrue.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

There is none righteous, no, not one.

[Lisa0315]

Not to mention that if people don't come in here trying to figure out what the Rules of the Day are, they'll have a bit of a problem posting in other sections of the forum without incurring violations.

Rules of the Day? I think they should create a new forum for that! ^_^ :thumbsup:

Lisa

[A New Dawn]

There is none righteous, no, not one.

Out of context. But good try. :wave:

[arborvita]

I would advise against making comments about things you haven't a clue about. Unless you of course you have been checking on everyone's board activity in this thread and if that's the case you're not one to talk about "limited interaction" on the board because that must take up a terrible amount of time.

People discuss rules because as membership we have a right to make comments and voice our opinion and ask questions. Do you suggest a closure to the rules forum? I am here (right now) to try to understand why things are being done the way they are. I'm trying to see why the web site CEO will not face his own membership and personally answer people. I also go on other parts of the forum including STR,WWMC, NCR, E&M, Mental Health, Women's discussion, Parenting, as well as occasional posts in friendship threads.
;)

[chaoschristian]

I still beg to differ. Maybe pseudo-good people will do bad things if the social system they are in promotes it, but your generalized painting with a broad brush is entirely untrue.

Who's broad-brushing my no-true-scotsman friend?

You seem to be taking this personally, just as Tangeloper did, when I don't believe any of it was intended to be personal. My comments certainly haven't been.

A social system can encourage, promote or tolerate certain acts. These can be acts of commission (doing harm), or acts of omission (standing by while harm is done). There enough examples of both of these from this site to refute your claim that it is untrue.

You are correct, however, in that personal disposition plays a role. It is not the only defining factor though. You can't isolate the individuals out of the system. The system I see being built here, as I understand it, has the potential to lead to exactly the same problems that existed prior to 777. The one significant difference is who's in charge and how they are handling it. I hope El Jeffe Lee appreciates MN and Constance, because he's staking the success of this site on their reputations and the strength of their broad-shoulders. I am hoping that the iron discipline that's been alluded to, and the wisdom that MN and Constance both possess is enough to off-set the flaws I see.

[chaoschristian]

GOD, our Heavenly Father, Blessed each of His children with FREE will, ie the will..., in choosing GOOD.

"observed scientific phenomena" - only indicates General statistics

'Good' people are also *individuals* - who can choose not to be a part of prevalent statistics.

'Good' people, as *individuals* can choose to continue :) exercising their will..., in choosing GOOD.

In numerous instances where "social system they are in, promotes bad behaviour" - How many personal examples can you recall :), where from your GOD-Blessed Imprinting you chose making a Difference :thumbsup:, starting with "NO, I will not compromise, nor participate, in ... (whatever); instead I will chose this ..." it seems to me, that us as GOD's children find it compelling, enough for us to behave like this, as we Naturally remember Who's we are. Annie

Free-will operates within social systems. You can't deny the social structures that bind us together and shape our attitudes and influence our decision making. Nor am I denying free-will by pointing out what some others seems to have ignored or have been ignorant of , namely that it's not all a matter of personal dispositional attitudes.

[A New Dawn]

Who's broad-brushing my no-true-scotsman friend?

You seem to be taking this personally, just as Tangeloper did, when I don't believe any of it was intended to be personal. My comments certainly haven't been.

A social system can encourage, promote or tolerate certain acts. These can be acts of commission (doing harm), or acts of omission (standing by while harm is done). There enough examples of both of these from this site to refute your claim that it is untrue.

You are correct, however, in that personal disposition plays a role. It is not the only defining factor though. You can't isolate the individuals out of the system. The system I see being built here, as I understand it, has the potential to lead to exactly the same problems that existed prior to 777. The one significant difference is who's in charge and how they are handling it. I hope El Jeffe Lee appreciates MN and Constance, because he's staking the success of this site on their reputations and the strength of their broad-shoulders. I am hoping that the iron discipline that's been alluded to, and the wisdom that MN and Constance both possess is enough to off-set the flaws I see.

It is one thing to say that the system promotes a certain behavior, it is another thing to say "'Good' people will do 'bad' things if the social system they are in promotes that kind of behaviour."

You, my friend, are the one who painted with the broad brush.

[Teshi]

I suggest The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Philip Zimbardo for anyone who is interested in how systems effect individual moral choices. Don't let the overwrought title throw you off; the text itself isn't particularly sensationalized, and has a kind of conversationally academic tone.

[chaoschristian]

It is one thing to say that the system promotes a certain behavior, it is another thing to say "'Good' people will do 'bad' things if the social system they are in promotes that kind of behaviour."

You, my friend, are the one who painted with the broad brush.

Good people will do bad things. See Teshi's post.

[A New Dawn]

Good people will do bad things. See Teshi's post.

Teshi's post means nothing. (Sorry Teshi. :hug: ) There are some people who are just integrity-driven. If "good people" turn evil, then they weren't good to begin with.

[Letalis]

I suggest The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Philip Zimbardo for anyone who is interested in how systems effect individual moral choices. Don't let the overwrought title throw you off; the text itself isn't particularly sensationalized, and has a kind of conversationally academic tone.
I picked up a copy the other day. It looks good, but I haven't had a chance to delve in.

[chaoschristian]

Teshi's post means nothing. (Sorry Teshi. :hug: ) There are some people who are just integrity-driven. If "good people" turn evil, then they weren't good to begin with.

Bye. If you're not willing to even make the attempt to understand, why bother. Have a nice life.

[A New Dawn]

Bye. If you're not willing to even make the attempt to understand, why bother. Have a nice life.

You seem just as close-minded about the issue, and since I know many integrity-driven individuals, and know how they respond in situations like this, then, no, I guess I can't make an attempt to understand. I can understand that power can corrupt if that is a sin area one is susceptible to, but to say that everyone will be corrupted by it is just wrong. Sorry. :wave:

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I don't hold much with this month's scientific studies or to the writer of the week, but I do know that generally good people will try to achieve a good result, but will arrive there by less than good methods. Happens all the time.

We have a drug problem in our schools! Let's get the drugs out of our schools! Zero tolerance! Next thing you know, kids are being expelled--even arrested--for taking an aspirin, a Midol, or prescribed asthma medicine to school.

[A New Dawn]

I don't hold much with this month's scientific studies or to the writer of the week, but I do know that generally good people will try to achieve a good result, but will arrive there by less than good methods. Happens all the time.

We have a drug problem in our schools! Let's get the drugs out of our schools! Zero tolerance! Next thing you know, kids are being expelled--even arrested--for taking an aspirin, a Midol, or prescribed asthma medicine to school.

I don't disagree that things like that do happen, but I do doubt that it is one "good person" who makes those decisions. In fact, while the idea might be conceived by a good-minded person, there are often committees formed that carries the good idea to the unhealthy extreme, probably to the chagrin of the person who conceived the idea. ;)

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Isn't that who we're talking about--groups of Staff who make and/or interpret the rules?

[A New Dawn]

Isn't that who we're talking about--groups of Staff who make and/or interpret the rules?

I wasn't talking about a specific group, but since they were general in nature, they could be applied to staff.

I believe that there were good people on staff who only had the desire to do their job in the fairest way possible, and there were some who were overly ambitious, in one way or another, and wanted a lot of input on making the decisions. Not that that is bad, but your example does point out ways that things can get out of hand. (I don't necessarily consider that corruption, though.)

[Lindon Tinuviel]

That's nice of you to say, Dawn. It's good to see two people who were at one another's throats find some common ground through rational discussion.

ETA: Hi again, Letalis... imagine seeing you here!

[Amoranemix]

I have moved here some responses to comments from the announcement foru.ms/t6374965-announcement-user-notes-will-be-utlilized-under-our-new-policies.html as they are mainly criticism. They follow first.

I, and I'm sure all staff, are well aware of the problems that happened before and thus why only FACTS will be allowed in a user's note -- no opinion, no comments, no gossip.How come you are sure staff is aware of the problems ? The problems were for the members, so why would staff care ?

Just so you all know... We are holding formal training for ALL staff, and there is a lot of work still being done with the technical aspects of the site. Please bear with us as we go through these changes. All of your staff is working hard right now, and we are all multi-tasking like crazy!! :)What about the training of the lowly members ? I haven’t received any training yet.

May I please request that you all give us a chance before assuming that these changes are all negative?[1] What some might see as "positives" other might not have... What some might see as "negatives" others might see as positives. Why not give us a chance here and THEN see if these changes are truly positive or negative.[2] The past is the past. We are all attempting to move forward and make this the best site it can be but that includes the cooperation of the members as well not to make assumptions that these things are all negative.[3] You may actually find that once the changes are made and things settle down that there will be LESS strife here than before -- that is the hope of Lee AND the rest of the staff.[4]
We thank you for your continued patience, and for keeping an open-mind during these changes.
[1] Yes, asking is free. [2] How naïve do you think we are, duchess ? How about actually addressing the concerns raised ? [3] You (the system) have made clear that the active cooperation of the members is not desired. How would not making assumptions about staff having a lot to hide (which happens to be supported by evidence) help this become the best site it can be ? [4] What people don’t know they can’t complain about. Eventually those who dislike dictatorships will grow tired of complaining and consequently there will be less strife. That doesn’t mean however that the site is fundamentally healthy. Why do you think that dictatorship in the real world is considered a worse form of government than democracy ?

PS -- I know that support staff has split (or is in the middle of splitting) some of the discussions from the other announcement threads that have been closed into new threads within the Wiki/Rules discussion forum. If you all need to vent, or express opinions, etc... You may wish to post on those threads as well. Respectful dialogue and questions are indeed encouraged as we wish to keep everyone well informed, and understanding these changes, however disrespect will not be tolerated. Again, this doesn't mean you are not allowed to express your opinions, just that we all need to remember to do so in a respectful manner.Respect is earned, not given away.

This is not the same as it was before in regards to the user note appearing on all posts. All of these things will be covered in staff training for sure... Thanks!Yes, I realize that as a lowly member I will be benefiting a lot from staff training. Knowledge gained by staff is telepathically transferred to ordinary members. Neat.

We are still working out the specifics of this system as far as I know. Please be patient as we work through these changes, and I will keep you as members notified when I receive answers myself. There is a lot of work to be done, and we are all volunteers.Most volunteers don’t hide their activities.

Do you really have that much of a problem with dissention that you have to move things to a so called "discussion" thread. Where of course you don't have to answer for what's been done and you can just let people talk?It is understandable that they don’t want to wade through the criticism to find the questions.

What other ways are you going to silence dissention in the coming months?They are still working on that. You will be informed on a need to know basis.

Just as for warnings and infractions, I am not against user notes. They can be a useful tool. The Powers That Be must just make sure that they won’t be abused. Will they ? I do not know.

Next I respond to some comments from this thread.

I have participated in a variety of forums over the past seven years, public and private, social or subject driven (science, nature, music, art, decorative painting, etc.). None of them have used the kind of convoluted system of member/posting controls that foru.ms uses.I think the larger the forum, the more useful is additional complexity of the government system.

On my profile I see an age-old warning for a post when I made a joke in bad taste because I had an off-day. I feel like I am marked.As far as I understand warnings and user notes are two different things.

This new change is disgusting. I don't even know where some of these warnings are from because I was never notified of them. All this gathering of information for a list of what bad things people have done sounds very gestapo-ish to meI won two warnings in January (at least so I was told by staff), but I have never seen them. Where can one see what warnings and infractions one has ?

please all know that this is never easy on anyone and CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUING is what the new admin needs from us right now, and not assumptions about what mihgt happen.Who is that new admin you are talking about ? LeeD is not admin but webmaster. What is he giving in return for that constructive criticism ? If you want people to give constructive criticism you should respond positively to it.

[Amoranemix]

It is a technical issue that is being worked on right now... There are problems regarding the expiration of old warnings and how the system is set up, and also in regards to removal which may or may not be possible (which we JUST came to realize). This is not because we wish to mis-inform anyone. It is because what we would LIKE to do doesn't always jive with what is technologically possible.How about what the members would like to do ? Who is working on the technical issue ?

May I suggest, in light of what is written below....that we do away with the newly re-introduced warning/infraction way of storing that information in a users homepage or control panel....and instead use member user notes to store all those relevant information?That would amount to creating the behaviour record I suggested.

Wouldn't the sensible and courteous thing to do have been to announce exactly what LeeD would like to do, and why, and then not implement the thing until the tech problems (there are always tech problems) were worked out? This is obviously causing distress to a lot of people, members and staff (like yourself) included.But is it causing stress to LeeD ? That is the really important question.

The list above has more than one username that I respect and trust. I suppose that will have to be good enough - one n