Go to The Town Square
- Add a comment
- Go to In response to members who posted about .Dave.
CringeintheUSA
I am sorry you are not happy. We cannot discuss everything with you, as
described here. I can sure assure you we make decisions carefully; we have no reason not to.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 4, 2007 at 1:52 PM
| link to this | reply
KaHae
Regarding your question about why we don't reveal everything about policy violations, here is
the answer. If you have additional feedback, please let us know.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 4, 2007 at 1:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Pat_B
We do regret that you are not happy. However, we do make all decisions very carefully, following
this procedure and basing it on a series of items (unless one of them is something like a death threat), taking into consideration the intent of the person. If there is something that you do not like about the procedure, please let us know.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 4, 2007 at 1:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Temple
We are very sorry that you are not happy. We do our best to be consistent; please report any violations to us, or if there is something in the
Conduct Policy or
procedure for handling policy violations that you would like us to change, please let us know.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 4, 2007 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm trying to come up with a logical, unemotional response to all that's
been carried out here, but it is difficult since we have not been presented with the full facts only accounts.
Again, I can only echo what so many people have pointed out so far, .Dave has waived his right to privacy regarding this, he has written a calm, reasonable email to you, which under the circumstances I admire him even more for.
I really think Blogit should reconsider, not only because the whole episode is a fiasco, but because it's the right and kind thing to do.
Besides, where will I be without .Dave & Chuck Dung? Do you know how many nights I've sat in the damp, cold spare room back in Ireland, laughing at the latest posts, coffee and chocolate in hand, instead of retreating to a heated living room (with crap TV mind you)? .Dave is what Blogit is about, and has been a point of contact for many people here, the diversity and varied ethnicity of his following/commentators is testament to his appeal, skills, wit, popularity, and overall personable approach.
Please, for the sake of all that I know as Blogit, let him be.
posted by
CringeintheUSA
on November 2, 2007 at 3:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Look, I don't know .Dave. and I don't have a personal view on the .Dave. matter
because I don't have the facts, all I have is a bunch of hearsay which may or may not present the full picture. What irritates me is how blogit staff are allowing this issue to develop unchecked. You write: "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."
The privacy rights in question belong to .Dave.! If he is happy to waive his rights to privacy then you have no obligation to remain silent about what caused you to ban .Dave. If you do remain silent, it suggests that you have something to hide - like, you made a mistake. We all make mistakes, since we're all human. It's not the end of the world, provided you take steps to make amends once you've cooled down enough to realize that yes, perhaps you were too hasty. I accept that if a third party has complained, the identity of that party should remain confidential, but that's
all that needs remain confidential if .Dave. has waived his right to privacy. Of course, if he hasn't, then that's a completely different story - but that's not the impression I'm getting.
posted by
KaHae
on November 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Apparently you think saying "sorry about that" is sufficient.
It is not. A more appropriate response to bloggers who "live" here would be to re-examine what led to your decision -- look into all the pros and cons. It's the fair and correct thing to do, and I hope you'll be human enough to think it over from the standpoint of what's best for the community. Consider it a kind of appeals court, where a bad decision may be overturned. Thank you for your consideration.
posted by
Pat_B
on November 2, 2007 at 9:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Robert, can't you just be flexible?
He was not harassing anyone or hurting anyone... he made an honest mistake. This is sincerely different from those who have (for years, I might add) made a policy of writing hurtful things about others. He knows not to do again, and yes, you have policies to enforce, but this was a mistake, not a blatant violation. It would not hurt anything if you decided to reinstate him based on that. Now we have all learned something about what you mean by spam, and we can have him back here. Please.
posted by
Temple
on November 2, 2007 at 12:58 AM
| link to this | reply