Go to The Town Square
- Add a comment
- Go to A Pure Businesslike Suggestion
Miriouma
I appreciate your feedback. However, I am confused about a couple of things.
When you say that you feel "the majority of [the] policy" is "vague", how would you like it be more specific? Are you asking, for example, that the number of warnings be specified, that some of the language be more precise, or something more?
When you mention a petition system but state that you are "not referring to those who are mean-spirited, abusive, etc.", I would request your input on one point.
Whenever we have suspended someone -- no matter how mean-spirited, abusive, etc. they were in our opinion and that of some others -- there are always some people who defend them and would disagree with those who call them mean-spirited or abusive.
So, the petition system would have to apply to all, not just some. If we truly were to abide by the petition system, this means that popular -- but mean-spirited or abusive to some -- people would be able to continue on Blogit. If there a way in which we could keep this from happening that would satisfy you?
Thank you.
Robert
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 6, 2007 at 3:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: .miriouma
Robert:
Thanks for taking to the time to answer my questions and to consider my suggestions. I appreciate that. I have read through the link you provided titled "procedure described here", and it does help to clarify a few things. However, it leaves the majority of your policy vague and does nothing to assuage my concerns that your policies are at times arbitrary to the opinion of the the staff member reviewing the alleged infraction.
In regard to your answer to number 4, I was not referring to those who are mean-spirited, abusive, etc. I myself have been the target of severe nastiness, and I was grateful to Blogit for kicking that blogger off the network - after, I assume, sufficient warning and after using the review system you have described.
Sometimes it so obviously looks like a duck - as in the case of the blogger described above - that it must naturally quack, waddle, and smell like one. Sometimes the animal is a bit more difficult to name.
It is my firm belief that you have mislabeled this particular one, and I stand by that belief. Again, I believe that the blogger in question should have been given more time with limited access to his account so he could figure out what he needed to do. You had a misunderstanding, and it was the writer - not Shaycom - who got the brunt of the damage.
Ultimately, Blogit has suffered a tremendous blow, and it is so sad to see. On the other hand, Blogit is a wonderful place to write, to express, to connect. Already writers are emerging from the rubble of this debate to form new alliances, new ways of connecting with one another. Writers are a resilient bunch, and those at Blogit are doubly so.
I will miss it terribly.
All Best for your Future Endeavor,
Miriouma
posted by
myrrhage_
on November 5, 2007 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
.miriouma
In response to your comments:
1) There seems to be some confusion about this. We only suspend someone based on a series of items, taking into consideration the intent of the person. We would not suspend someone based on a single occurrence (unless it's something like a death threat). And, we do not simply take action because someone reports something; we review the relevat item(s) first.
Currently, we try to let people violate policies about three times before issuing a permanent suspension. It sounds like you would prefer it to be 5, and we will certainly consider doing that. We would appreciate others' input on this, since people sometimes feel that we take too long to suspend repeat violators even with a policy of three times.
2) To notify a person about an issue, we contact them via email. We generally have good luck doing this, so we typically use the ability to turn off commenting or posting for a period of time only when the email does not work.
3) We would not do that. As described above, suspensions are based on a series of items. It has always seemed a little harsh to us to "mark" someone simply because they did something inappropriate, but perhaps that is necessary so that more people see the series of items, rather than thinking we make decisions too quickly.
4) We would love to have a petition system. However, what do we do when someone is abusive to certain people, but nice to the majority? Do we let them stay simply because they are popular? If this seems like an extreme example, it's not; it has happened on Blogit several times over the years.
I do regret that you are displeased. However, we do try to follow the procedure described here (there are more answers to common questions about policy violations here).
We are listening, and we would be more than happy to continue to discuss this with you.
Robert
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 4, 2007 at 11:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Well said!
posted by
Brian76
on November 2, 2007 at 5:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Very well said, Mimi!
Brava darling! I hope you are posting this where the rest of the community can see it.
posted by
Temple
on November 2, 2007 at 12:49 AM
| link to this | reply