Go to Community Help
- Add a comment
- Go to Enforcement of Blogit Policies
Please see our answers
Please see our answers in our new Community Help post here:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/help/253570
Thank you.
Blogit Team
www.blogit.com
posted by
BlogitStaff
on April 28, 2005 at 9:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Here's the thing....
This really is just a misunderstanding. You asked her to remove offending material from a specific Blog. She did. She reposted the blog without the offending material, believing that she complied with your policies. Isn't that sufficient? Can't it be an honest misunderstanding? I would have thought that was okay, also, so, since she agreed to post without the violations, why would that have been her third strike? She's been here a long time with a good track record, outside of this one particular incident. I think it's fair to say it was a miscommunication and that she deserves a second chance. Obviously, I'm getting one side of the story, but I believe that she geniunely thought she complied with your request. This was a very specific situation, and she would never reoffend once she understood what it is you are asking of her. That's all any of us want, really.
posted by
Temple
on April 28, 2005 at 7:01 PM
| link to this | reply
I have read Whammies posts since I signed up here and never have I found her writing to be offensive. She writes about her life just as most of us do here. It seems unfair that you can boot someone without giving the rest of us any justification. Regarding your statement that you cannot monitor all of the posts and comments - does that mean you did not personally read Whammies post until it was pointed out to you? Does that mean that everyone who is regularly offended by the posts or comments of others should let you know about them?
posted by
Ca88andra
on April 28, 2005 at 6:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Dear Blog-It: I said this in another post, but once again:
First, allow me to say that while I am not a friend or particularly close to Whamenator, I do read her regularly, occasionally comment, and have never found her to be anything other than interesting, entertaining, and honest. I have never detected any negativity about her, nor have I ever gotten the sense that she was "out to get" anyone or otherwise acting in a malevolent or malicious manner. So, as we say in this part of the world, "I don't really have a dog in this fight."
But, in principle, I do. Here is why:
As a community of writers who pay to post here, we are glad that Blog-It does have some guidelines in place, and we try to respect each other and honor those guidelines. Some bloggers are a little more out there than others, but generally, everyone -- including and especially Whamenator -- in my experience, has done just that.
This is a good community in so many ways -- supportive, relatively safe, almost self-policing, actually. No one wants to see anyone's feelings hurt, and I don't believe anyone is truly out to offend anyone. Some are more blunt than others, but that, to me, is more of a question of style and semantics rather than malice anbd aforethought.
As to the blogger in question, I have never read anything Whamenator has written that could be construed as particularly seditious, vitriolic, or otherwise terribly offensive. And while I missed reading her Wednesday -- she may have already been banned -- I cannot imagine it being so vitriolic as to require this.
On the other hand, I have run across several blogs recently that fall comfortably into the class of "trolling," to which you refer to in the rules of conduct. And why I don't necessarily advocate getting rid of them -- I tend to ignore such, anyway -- I could comfortably say that some of them consistently post material far more negatively provocative than anything Whamenator ever wrote.
Another aspect of this is something you also point out in your response. That is, sometimes situations seem one-sided because your policy is to not comment on them publicly. Fair enough. However, because this person is so popular and read by so many, a great number of folks can say, with clear conscience and ability to read for comprehension, that they have not seen anything in her posts that could be construed as a violation. Which leads to the unrest and the serious questioning, not of the policy, which is a good thing to have, but in the application and interpretation thereof. To wit: What did she say and how did she say it? Not only would it be helpful to know why the action was taken, but it would certainly be instructive for the rest of the community to know so that we don't inadvertently make the same mistake.
In conclusion, I respectfully ask that you reconsider this action.
Sincerely,
Strat
posted by
strat
on April 28, 2005 at 6:06 AM
| link to this | reply
EDIT TO BELOW POST - Let me clarify that those sixteen blogs/posts were on page one. That means sixteen out of twenty-five. I could go and count the rest if you'd like me to.
posted by
roofpig
on April 28, 2005 at 5:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Dear Blogit,
Enforcement or not, the majority is against you in this case. As far as I know (and I'm willing to admit I could be wrong in this), Whammie was never specifically told what she did wrong. So basically you are being a parent who took the child's toy away without telling the child what she did wrong. You know what this creates in the child and siblings? Hate.
Use your head - on the most popular blogs today list there are sixteen blogs/posts dedicated to this situation. And this isn't counting some of the blogs I've seen of bloggers who have cancelled their subscriptions. I will not be cancelling mine until I know I've exhausted every resource at my fingertips.
Stop giving us these "professional" responses to this situation. I understand there is only so much you can mention to us; I work in a real profession as well. But you are hearing the voices of people and it would be nice to hear a person's voice respond back, not an automaton's voice. If you can't discuss the situation with us, how about telling us what you can? Better yet, how about telling Whammie?
posted by
roofpig
on April 28, 2005 at 5:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Privacy or no privacy, Whammie's being dropped has too much of an arbitrary feel to it. Unless she was writing in other tha blogit, there was nothing (that I can remember) that could have been particularly offensive or against the rules of conduct that you have so nicely pointed us to.
There are others who breach those rules of cnduct consistently,and you don'tseem to censure them.
I recognise that you can't monitor the couple of hundred postings each day, but,if someone brings a breach to your attention, there's no reason why you can't go through and check that it really is so.
So,amybe,in the interests of peace on blogit,perhaps you should review your policy and give a rational explanation of why Whammie was jumped on.
posted by
L.E.Gant
on April 28, 2005 at 2:53 AM
| link to this | reply
I've been reading Whammie for a long time...
and I know that she is no more inflamitory or guilty of violating Shaycom policy than dozens of other bloggers. Actually, she is considerably less rude and obnoxious than dozens of other bloggers, most of the time she is a very nice person. This seems awfully arbitrary and unfair, give her another chance.
posted by
jimmy68
on April 27, 2005 at 8:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Blogit, you can see our concern when there doesn't seem to be uniformity.
For example, there was a situation recently when a blogger was attacking Whammie and calling her a murder and other such vile things. I'm a lawyer (no longer practicing, so this was just interpretation, not advice) that it looked to me that if this person said such thing in the "real" world it would be defamation of character. Especially considering that Whammie is a police officer. There are many legal layers here, but I won't go into that. In any case, I know that she was reported, the blogger who said this. She would go into blog after blog, just to say these negative things. On the internet, legally, this is an issue that is still being defined. However, I just read your policies again and defamation is clearly stated as a violation. There was much proof, but this blogger remains here. She has a pattern of doing this to other people as well.
Furthermore, there is this rule #3:
Respect the rights of others to enjoy Blogit. Please do not participate in antisocial, disruptive, or destructive acts. This includes but is not limited to, "flaming" (making insulting criticisms or remarks to incite anger), "spamming" (posting numerous and/or unwanted and disruptive items), and "trolling" (intentionally inciting negative disruption, such as posting to make purely negative or disruptive comments).
In regards to the "trolling" portion of the rule, we have a blogger now who is intentionally trying to upset people, and I know people have reported him. His blogs are ugly and disparaging against entire groups of people. Yet, he remains. He is not the only one, and I know others who've been reported on but also remain. Now, if Whammie was banned for the reason I think she was, I understand it was a violation. However, what I think is so upsetting to the community here is that we don't know where we stand, the rules seem ambiguous, and there doesn't seem to be uniformity. Do you understand how that makes us feel here? I'm sure Whammie didn't intentionally violate policy, she loves this community, and clearly we love her. All we ask is that you start to be less secretive and vague so that we don't find ourselves in this position.
posted by
Temple
on April 27, 2005 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: BULL S****
Entrepreneur_Maker, we don’t suspend members who say something we don’t like. We typically suspend members who have repeatedly violated Blogit Conduct Policy even after they’ve been warned. And we enforce Blogit policies whether or not it will be a popular decision.
FYI, this is the process we follow: http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Help/HelpPage.aspx?page=policyviolations
Thank you.
Blogit Team
www.blogit.com
posted by
BlogitStaff
on April 27, 2005 at 4:52 PM
| link to this | reply
PLEASE
BRING BACK WHAMMIE
posted by
_Symphony_
on April 27, 2005 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply
I am the boss, and so are the 100's of other bloggers
We pay the salaries, and we call the shots!
Ok, maybe that's a little dramatic.
How bout we all just try to get along................after Whammie is re-instated of course! 
BRING BACK WHAMMIE!
posted by
David1Spirit
on April 27, 2005 at 4:36 PM
| link to this | reply
BULL S****
WE PAY YOU YOU F'In LAMEO
If your going to kick off ONE then kick off EVERYONE who says something you dont' like
BS.
WHAT SAY YOU BLOGIT? DO WE TAKE OUR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE?
posted by
Entrepreneur_Maker
on April 27, 2005 at 4:32 PM
| link to this | reply
We want a do over!!!!
Forgive and forget! Turn the other cheek! We want Whammie back!
BRING BACK WHAMMIE!
posted by
David1Spirit
on April 27, 2005 at 4:31 PM
| link to this | reply
I wish you would listen to us
you are wrong in banning somebody who never did deserve this
PLEASE
BRING BACK WHAMMIE
posted by
_Symphony_
on April 27, 2005 at 4:28 PM
| link to this | reply