Friday, November 2, 2007
Dear Blogitstaff:
I'm sorry, but your explanation and "sorry about that, we'll miss .Dave" is not quite acceptable to many of us.
A more appropriate response to bloggers who "live" here would be to re-examine what led to your decision to ban him. Take another look at all the pros and cons. You could become a kind of appeals court, and entertain the possibility of overturning a hasty decision.
It seems the fair and correct course of action. Please think about what's best for the community. Thank you for your consideration.
About .Dave.
Okay, I know you've made the decision to permanently ban .Dave. I think it's a bad decision, but I don't guess you're going to change your mind just because I don't agree. But I want to tell you what .Dave. did for this community, and for me in particular, just in case it might help you understand why I, and so many others, are so very upset by this decision.
.Dave. showed up on Blogit four years ago and began promoting, not his own blogs, which would have been both understandable and expected, but my blogs, and other people's. He did what I didn't have time to do. He took my Blog Seeds and planted them, and encouraged other writers to plant them. And he started a blog to chronicle those posts that had been inspired by the seeds. And so many people found out about my seeds that way.
Many writers here were "discovered" by other bloggers simply because they wrote a seed-inspired post and were included in the list at the Potting Shed. I know I discovered a few that way. Many other writers were "discovered" and became popular because .Dave. took the time to comment on their posts, or to "remember" their posts in his "Blogit Gold Dust" or "A to Z of Bloggers."
In short, .Dave. came here and set out to contribute to the Community. Not just to earn money for himself and to have a forum to spout his own ideas publicly, but to promote those whose work he saw as useful, interesting, or unique. And his own work flourished because he struck a chord among other bloggers. Those who clicked on his blogs to "repay" a click or two found themselves hooked and kept clicking.
What was wonderful about .Dave. was that he didn't care if you clicked on him or not. He clicked my Blog Seeds blog every day for four years, and I don't think I've visited his blogs more than a handful of times in those four years. He knew my limitations, and supported me anyway.
All that to say, it's a shame that such a community-minded, inoffensive person has been ousted. I'm going to miss .Dave. And it's clear to me that many other bloggers will, too.
Dave did not break any rules.
We are all agreed on that. We have not been shown, and you will not show us, why you have accused him of breaking a rule that he did not break. It's no good saying he was spamming. He wasn't. That will not wash, and does not hold water, rather like my washing machine. Nothing was sent to anyone else's site. It was all on his own site. Repetition of the same blog? Which rule is that? So someone may have complained about these two unusual types of blog. Why did you take that complaint so seriously? Presumably, whatever that person says will carry the day, right or wrong, wouldn't you agree that's how it looks. There's someone out there of whom we should be afraid, very afraid. I know for a fact that there are other examples where people have been complained about for far better reason, and nothing has been do ne at all. And now, someone makes a complaint, even though no rule has been broken, and Dave is thrown out. Did you realise that Dave was the most community-minded person on this blog? So if you are sorry to throw him out, why not reverse the decision? You made the decision - not the complainer - you. So you can reverse it. Your hands aren't tied, are they? No-one bosses you about do they? You care about fairness to all, don't you, not just to one person's opinion (and their friends). If I complained and got ten others to make a similar complaint, even if it was unfounded, would you throw someone out in this same way? If that's all we need to do, then why don't we all start getting our little groups together and getting people we don't like thrown out. You can see that in that event, all the cliques would eliminate each other and there'd only be new writers left, Or maybe you only care about new writers, since they pay more, don't they? Maybe we are all expendable - or most of us, anyway, as long as your own personal favourites remain inviolable. (That's the view of many subscribers by the way).
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Please Provide Clarification.
Can you please explain why the Blogit staff interpreted items that .Dave. posted as containing spam? This is what everyone is asking--that you provide a better explanation of the rule than just a repost of or a link to the rule(s), against which we are all having a hard time seeing his infraction.
Offering a better explanation can only help us all out in the long run. If there is this broad a misunderstanding of your rule, then it's only fair to both you and your customers that you further explain it.
It is not easy being in charge...
I appreciate that, and that while people are flailing at your head for something you nearly wish you hadn't done, they are also making it very difficult to respond like an adult or a leader or a professional management team. If you change your decision, it lets them think they've won, you've lost. Can't be havin' with that!
There are certain kinds of trouble you wanted to avoid, so you put in place The Rules. But what do you do when The Rules fail in fairness, or in avoiding trouble or actually create more hassle than they prevent--there you are stuck without a graceful way to make adjustments.
No one is going to browbeat or bully you into reconsidering something you have done According to The Rules.
What do you need as an alternative, from us, to make it possible to reconsider a Rule that isn't working the way it was intended?
Can you tune out the bullies in the crowd who just want to knock you down and rub your nose in wrongness? There are plenty of mature and reasonable people talking to you now about this banning issue, and you could listen just to them, and have a reasonable dialog with them, and work out a better system than this one which has caused grief and hassle every now and then for as long as I have been on Blogit.
There are times and places when an Autocrat is the only way to get things done. Usually it is in situations that are short term, like a party, or when the people being managed are unable or unwilling to grasp the whole picture, or lack the sophistication to make informed and rational decisions. Or when quorums are not to be found reliably, to make changes that need to be made.
I don't think Blogit is that sort of situation: It is a long-term party, full of diverse people many of whom are far from unsophisticated, many of whom are mature and good-natured as a rule, and willing to be reasonable. Hard to tell, though, when so many people are angry and frustrated and alarmed and defensive--on both sides of the discussion!
Is there not some way this sort of situation can be addressed productively? Is there not some solution to going through this every time someone is banned whom others liked, admired, and saw good and no harm in?
How about locking down an allegedly offensive blog, long enough to have some time to work out the problem if indeed there is one, or permanently if no other solution will serve?
And what is your concept of the relationship of Blogiteers and Blogit and Blogit Team? Is a community the people who live in it, or the people who run it? Is a management team the autocrat, or the steward of the community? Is walking away the only effective voice of distress the community member has, when distress is with the management of the site? Is protest like this, over this banning, just a storm that will blow over eventually, that can't really do too much damage, so need not be taken too seriously long term?
Blogit has a lot to offer, is basically a great notion--but this is about real people, real feelings, real investments of time, energy and other resources. Yours and ours, both.
So what's to be done?
Ciel
A Pure Businesslike Suggestion
I do intend to leave as a matter of principle. However, I believe the success of any business is partly dependant upon the business owner being flexible to the needs - and changes - of his venture.
In this case, it seems that unless your intent is indeed to create discord and sadness - rather than a healthy, open forum through which creative people can interact - it would behoove you to make some adjustments to your policy regarding conduct. Here are a few:
1) Do not rely on one complaint from one member about another member to be the platform from which you base your decisions. Set your number higher. How about 5 complaints from 5 individual members? This is a big site, with lots of people on it. One complaint should not reflect the opinion of the entire community.
2) Consider a period of suspension. How about allowing an offending blogger one week with edit-only access to his account? After that time, if the writer's material still violates conduct, the account could be closed.
3) Keep in mind that bloggers have "real" lives, too. Suppose a writer posts something offensive or "spam-like" to his blog, but then has to leave for the day to, I don't know, go to work. Upon his return to the keyboard, said writer discovers three warnings from Shaycom, goes to his account to fix the problem and finds the account closed. That is, in essence, what happened this time.
4) Build a System of Appeal. Allow the banned blogger to plead his/her case. Perhaps build a petition system, upon which bloggers can sign for or against the blogger's banning. Writers come to this site because they have voices, and they want their voices to be heard. Taking that voice away from us takes the air out of our blogging sails.
I realize this seems like quite a bit of extra work, but given how seldom a beloved blogger is kicked off the network, I imagine the time spent judiciously making your decision would be time well spent.
Thanks for listening.
In response to members who posted about .Dave.
The loss of .Dave. is a loss for Blogit and he will be missed.
Believe it or not, we are human and it is frustrating that we can't discuss everything publicly and completely. Unfortunately, for privacy reasons, we cannot discuss a different member's account. All we can tell you is that .Dave.'s account is closed and we are sorry for any distress this is causing you.
To those who are asking about the procedure we use when reviewing reports of potential policy violations, here is more information. You may also wish to read the Conduct Policy.
Robert
Seriously now, guys, his post was in the humor section...
And it clearly was satirical.. humor... nonsense. Just being silly. It cannot be spam if someone is not having it forced upon them, and people have to click on it to read it. If they don't like it, they don't have to click. It was never truly identical or repetitive considering that he changed the number at the very least, and he said that while waiting for a response from you that he changed it dramatically and you still banned him. Why would you not give him more warning? He's been a wonderful part of our community for years and this is such a dramatic and monumental overreaction, I can't believe it. You have become automatons, no feelings or concerns for the very people that make Blogit happen ... for the people who have made it grow. So many good people have left because of that. Why can't you just suspend someone, not be so extreme? Especially someone like Dave. It ruins the experience for so many of us when you treat us as nothing but money coming in.
Community members have spoken here.
Where is the help?
No answers yet ...
I see we're still being given the silent treatment here. Now that's very professional indeed!
