Go to The Town Square
- Add a comment
- Go to It is not easy being in charge...
Re: Ciel
I appreciate your response-- and return the apology for taking so long to respond.
My input: It is hard to not seem arbitrary when rules can only be sometimes enforced, because they are only sometimes complained about, though maybe frequently pushed, nudged, fudged and truly broken. This sets up an expectation of leniency that is not a bad thing in a free society. But then the problem becomes one of having no rules at all ever enforced. So what we have is a semi-free society where there is always lots of rope lying around, and those who want to play with it run the risk of hanging themselves.
I think it comes down to being very clear indeed on what is rope and what is twine and what is yarn for knitting nice things...
I think it should not be how many times so much as how serious the infraction.
I think Blogit needs some kind of temporary banning so that a much-liked person can be banned, but be let back in after a time. If I were autocrat, I would count such suspensions rather than incidents that led to warnings.
This is an extraordinary community with a huge social interaction factor, not just a writers' posting forum. It is, generally, a free society by its nature. I think perhaps it needs a forum for complaints and discussion of these kinds of issues, and of specific cases. While Blogit should retain the final say, the mature, reasoning and eloquent writers in our microcosm should have a place to make their points, discuss situations.
As to specifics--I have noticed that within a couple of days of an incident everyone has access to the information anyway, plus a lot of speculation and assumption, emotional reaction, and misinformation. I suggest that it is worse than pointless to try to keep details under wraps, though you may do so out of respect for the person involved. You try to keep it between Blogit and the 'perp.' But this is not that kind of society--and this is a society, by the measure of any anthropologist. On-line relationships are not like in-person ones, but they are no less real and emotionally significant.
I suggest that you could leave it up to the 'perp' to start a discussion in the forum I suggested above: if they want to give permission to open the matter to general membership, they would have the option. With that permission stated in that forum, Blogit could then give their side of the matter.
Blogit has a forum for 'mature writing.' It could use one for this, too.
In being redirected into this forum, there would be a page clearly outlining the rules of that forum. For instance, that posting your issue in it makes the issue a matter of public perusal and discussion, and gives permission to Blogit to release information for discussion. This would never include personal contact information. But one of the first discussions should be about whether the identity of a person making a complaint should be kept secret.
As soon as someone is suspended or blocked, they'd have the right to take their case to this forum. If Blogit suspended someone for a month for what in the current system is a banning, that would give plenty of time for the discussion. The suspension should be of a particular blog, not a blogger, if possible. Blogit's announcement of the suspension should be in the forum so anyone interested in keeping abreast of these things could see it; an e-mail to the blogger in question would be sent letting them know the status of the suspended blog privately, and letting them know of the availability of the forum, and what the rules of it are.
We live in a time of public judgment, like never before: we are conditioned by life in a democracy (of sorts) and by our evenings full of 'you be the judge' reality (of sorts) shows and have come to expect the right of opinion and statement. Blogit runs full tilt up against that expectation when it disallows discussion, debate and defense that involves the community.
We also live in a time of massive frustration with and distrust of government and authority, which, when it vents, carries a whole lot of emotional luggage with it, and that makes it harder than it should be to be in a position of authority, having to make rules and decisions and judgements. But it is how it is.
And if you adopt these suggestions, you should give me a free year of Blogit, because (I think) this is a darn good suggestion!
posted by
Ciel
on November 12, 2007 at 11:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Ciel
Thank you for your reasoned and careful message. Although we cannot discuss one particular case, we are more than happy to discuss specifics about what a policy means or improving the process of handling policy violations etc.
We would prefer to act as a steward than as than an autocrat, trying to help everyone coexist and avoiding situations that make people less happy whenever possible. We live here too, and although it's sometimes necessary to do things that don't make everyone happy, we don't want to do them too often.
In regards to your specific comments:
1. If there is a Rule that people don't feel is working or appropriate, what we'd suggest is that people review the Conduct Policy and ask us any questions they have about the meaning of a specific rule, or suggest how it should be changed to make it better.
2. Regarding suspensions, we'd prefer not to have do them at all. I think there may be some confusion on this; we only suspend someone based on a series of items, taking into consideration the intent of the person, not on a single occurrence (unless it's something like a death threat).
I'd ask for your input on how many times we should let someone do something against the rules? We try to keep it around three times; is this too little or too much? Should it be visible, so that people don't feel that we're being arbitrary? It's always seemed a little harsh to us to "tag" someone with a red mark simply because they were once doing something inappropriate, but perhaps that is what is necessary.
3. Regarding lockdowns, we do have the ability to turn off commenting or posting, and we do use it. One of the issues, though, is that this is not visible, so people don't necessarily see that we've done it; the person (most of the time) simply changes their behavior. Do we need to make this visible too?
I apologize for the delay in responding; we've tried to implement one solution to reduce conflict, and we hope to be able to do more based on feedback.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on November 4, 2007 at 10:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: You have a point
Thanks for responding, Brian-- I agree that responsiveness is of the essence, and that Blogit staff have dropped that ball heavily.
I am not arguing that anger is out of place here, or that it came after shock, disappointment, embarrassment, lack of communication and responsiveness--Only that venting it freely rarely actually brings about change without more pain and destruction than is really anyone's desire or goal.
Vociferous anger is often a tool of bullies to get their own way. It is about intimidation and shame, about making the target focus on their own mean, small selves, and surrendering their beliefs and feelings to the bigger, badder monkey. It is a tool of revolution.
But in a situation where change, not overthrow, is called for, it is a lose/lose strategy. It shuts down an already weak channel of communication, and creates an atmosphere of dog-fight when what is needed is negotiation, good faith, trust in the other's good faith.
I am not defending the Blogit Rules or the arbitrary way they are applied--but the process for repairing what is broken, for making it better. The alternative is for those who care, to make Blogit cease to exist for themselves--leaving it to those who like it or can put up with it just the way it is.
posted by
Ciel
on November 2, 2007 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
You have a point
But first we were not angry only disappointed and embrassed. We asked Blogit several time to explain the sytuation not only for Dave but to let us understund in which way Dave violated Blogit rules because we couldn't find the reason. For days they give no response and then a certain Robert acted like blogit could do nothing about it. That's what made us angry - the lack of mature communication.
posted by
Brian76
on November 2, 2007 at 5:38 AM
| link to this | reply