Lounge FISK/FACE STARTS A NEW ERA AT WOV

Thank you Face, for not using the usual wov heavy hand of others to punish people who posted insults today. There were only a handful, but its a better climate if insults, and threads for the purpose of insults, are handled like you handled them today. That is fantastic.

beached whale didnt do her usual act of over riding you. She didnt step on you. All she did was support you by threatening to suspend Demango for even suggesting that a rule was broken.

Although rule #1 was amended 2 years ago to dis-allow all insults.......I think its better to handle it the way you did and if enough mods ignore that rule....the board will be a better place.

There will be less anxiety. Just have beached whale threaten anyone who complains about insults. And before you know it....insults will no longer be a bone of contention.

I am happy to be part of the transformation.

i have said many times, that there is nothing that an anonymous person can say to me online that can make me feel insulted. And I continue to stick with that.

I was not insulted, and anyone who suggests that it was insulting to me should be threatened by beached whale. Its the proper thing to do, considering the new era .

Bravo
carry on
I can see things looking up going forward

 

For someone who doesn't care what is written about them, this is your second eulogy about said poster who wrote an insulting thread about you, just sayin

 

Though I appreciate the compliment, it's not quite as simply as you portray.

As far as I'm aware, the rule against insults applies to members in good standing only. Surely we rip apart politicians, talking heads, professional athletes, etc daily, and obv no bans come from that. I believe insult protection also extends to members who are suspended but not "nuked", as well as members who have self excluded but who are welcome to return. As a member who has been nuked, you would not be considered under that umbrella of protection, hence no insta-ban.

That is not to support OAB's opinion that "management must not have had a problem with it". I do not like when anyone is attacked under my watch, regardless of that person's history on the site. Whether it's an opinion I agree with or not, actions such as that only serve to inflame and incite. It's an empty comment with no value that can only generate negativity. I don't like that. It both lowers my enjoyment of the site as well as causes me more work.

My decision to just say stop and close it without further action or comment was my own personal management decision using the best of my years of knowledge of that place. I could have wiggled a ban in there using 4 or 5 different rules, the easiest being "expected to act like gentlemen". I could have deleted it as I felt it had no value to WoV or its members. I could have corrected OAB/LSH like a child. But WoV can be fickle. It's the ol' "can't please all the people all the time" cliche. No one likes bans, no one likes public humiliation / shaming, no one likes censorship. I felt the thread was something for which I could not stand by and let continue, but also felt like the membership was a bit tired of moderator action. I chose what I felt would be the least disruptive while at the same time defensive of the site, and as my action seemed to only catch the attention of WizardofNothing, I'm counting that one as a win.

Allowing insults isn't up to me. I have to act on them. I just try to do so with the forum's best interests in mind.

 

If only the other moderators, administrators, and specifically former site owner, were as level-headed and fair-minded as you, this site probably wouldn't even exist or at least the most popular thread on this site wouldn't exist. I join in offering my kudo to you for the job you have done and are continuing to do. You are most definitely one of the brighter spots to WoV.

I know in my case, even if I didn't agree with the way something was handled, if I really felt the person handling it was trying to be as fair as he/she could be, with the best interest of the site foremost, I could accept his/her decision and actions more than if it is obvious to everyone that there is some sort of cronyism, friendship favoritism involved.

 

On one occasion before I was banned from wov, I noted that Face was different than others in a good way. I forget how I actually phrased it.
However it seems I spoke too soon. As I read this thread, I see someone else was punished.
I applaud you for looking at punishment as a last resort. And the fact that people on Wov are getting tired of seeing punishment as you point out....is the basis of this thread....as people here got tired of t long ago.
Its nothing new today. Not a large quantity of punishments compared to other times in the history of wov. But sometimes there is a tipping point...where enough is enough.
Where the poor customer service is not tolerated, .....Like the man in "Network"......"I'm, MAD AS HELL AND I'm NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE"

You did well inyour handling of the situation, not that you need my pat on the head. BUT I must be consistent. I have said all along that people are mentally maladjusted if they actually can feel insulted by an anonymous person hurling insults their way. People who dont know them. Now if they are people who have had intimate contact with you and know you as a person...then....go ahead and feel insulted.
But either people are over sensitive when they call for suspensions because they were insulted...or they are pretending to be insulted because they get a kick out of seeing people punished...or having a part in it through their complaints.

Either way its a mental issue that cant be solved on a message board.

However just because there are people like that who exist....doesnt mean a business has to cater to them.

Unless the people in charge of customers service also get a thrill from administering punishment.....and in that case its a symbiotic relationship. The complainers, and the punishers feed off of each other....encourage each other...while the normal folks watch in disgust or just leave

Although I thought your action was going to symbolize a new era....It seems I was wrong.
Its just going to be used as an example of the uneven punishment Its just going to shine the light even brighter on the difference between one mod and another mod......and if you happen to cross a line in front of one mod...the punishment is one kind...and if you cross the line in front of another mod, the punishment is something else.
THAT....is horrible customer service. That is the basis of this thread since day 1

But I do have 2 questions for you as a mod....A while ago wiz explained that he punished for insults because he wanted the quality of the board to be intact...so that if a potential new member was lurking and reading he/she wasnt scared away by seeing a bunch of insults. It was quality control.
So if thats the case...do you really think a newbie visiting the board has a scorecard of who was banned and who wasnt? Do you think they would be just as turned off seeing insults of banned members as they would members in good standing...since they dont know the difference betwee the 2.?. I am just using the wizards own justification for banning insults and throwing it back at you for a possible explanation.

Because I dont buy that reason. Its bogus. Its simple. Some people enjoy administerng punishment. And some people enjoy watching it be administered, and others enjoy the hand they have in having others administer punishment. The wiz actually commented that he punishes when he is in a bad mood.....so that even verifies my contention.

But this crap about quality control and "appearance" to newbies and future members doesnt fly. Esoecially as member visits have deteriorated over the last 2 years....with the punishment philosophy.

Question 2- if punishment is meant to shame the "insulter" ......doesnt it also provied extra shame to the victim?//when a link is provided so that just in case someone didnt catch the original insult in one of the hundreds of threads that they dont normally visit....they now get a second chance. It cannot be felt that people are really insulted by these anonymous posters(like I say my philosophy is).......if people in charge at wov are dead set on doubling down on the insult by providing a link.....in effect reposting it.
So please dont tell us that the insulted party is being protected. They actually are being re-hurt.

That is the fallacy of the suspension list of shame as the wiz calls it.If anything it shames the aggrieved party

 

Sorry for hacking your post, I'm not yet savvy enough with this forum to do it cleaner.

I get your point about the unevenness, and you're not near the first (nor last) to point it out. I think I would agree that in just about any venture, whether work or play, a uniform code of policy enforcement is generally superior. But there's two reasons it's never bothered me that much. First is that this just isn't that serious. While Wiz's work has changed many lives, including mine, and his work took much effort over many years, it is, in the end, just a forum. I never saw it as some huge conglomerate, or even a large company. I always saw it as just a guy who, with the help of a programmer or two, a mathematician or two, created this playground. Me, Babs, Mission, we're all volunteers. The members are all volunteers. Though I respect and care for the site and its members, it's not something in which I pour all my effort to raise to the next level. I wouldn't even know how to do that if I wanted. I just try to influence conduct towards the goal I felt Wiz had after speaking to him personally about it, which was a place for intelligence to gather, debate gentleman-like, and assist the public when it comes to casino gambling. No more, no less. Other mods may have different feelings, or they may have the same feelings but act on them differently. We're different. It happens. But without some sort of uniform training as to how to manage the place, which will never happen for the reasons above, the unevenness will persist.

The second reason it never bothered me is because I fail to see how breaches of the rules even happen. All of the rules (and all of most rules) all boil down to one message: Don't be a cunt. WoV forum, the Ten Commandments, the Constitution, it's all the same. I do get passionate about things, people do say things that I vehemently disagree with, and some people do piss me right off. And in real life, while I mostly carry myself similar to what your familiar with from the forum world, I'm not always all that nice. I do have a not insignificant streak of anger and violence in me. But it's not hard, at all, for me to stuff that when I'm here typing to the masses. If I can do it, I expect others too, as well. And while I agree that a uniform code would be perhaps smoother, I do see value in having the line sort of blurred. If there's a cliff with a guardrail, you'll not think twice of sitting right on it. If there's just a cliff, you don't get as close. I look at our way as being guardrail-less. There's the line, and then there's this little area of uncertainty. I would think it would cause even more hesitation before posting.

Now, your questions...

I don't think any true newbie knows nor cares, and I can certainly see how it could be hurtful. I am one who prefers no insults at all, save for the typical tearing downs of politicians, sports coaches/athletes, etc. Something like the "Predator" thread, as I've already stated, is something I'd rather not have happen at all, and though there is no direct violation of a formal rule, it is something I see as harmful and will act to try to stop. But I dunno. It's a big balancing act to me. I can't control people, and some have deep feelings towards others. If someone drops a "gotcha" on a banned member and makes them look stupid, I generally overlook it depending on how offensive it was and how often they keep railing on and on about it. I've got to balance what i consider good for the forum by what's being posted, as well as what's good for the forum by how members will react if I take action. And I ABSOLUTELY realize that my allowing that influence is a direct cause of some of the favoritism issues people have spoken about, but... I dunno. All I can say is that I try to do my best, as often as I possibly can. Sometimes I win, sometimes I really fuck things up. But I try, so I (usually) sleep just fine.

I totally get your second point. If seeing "X" hurts, then why in the world would you quote X, repost X, catalogue X, and highlight X. Seems counterproductive.

But I, like you, don't take too much personally. I'm the type who stands as his own man. If I fuck up, I want it there. I want someone to see it. I NEED someone to see it, because otherwise no one will be there to tell me I fucked up, and I'll just continue fucking up all the while thinking I'm doing a good job. If I hold an unpopular view, I stand behind it. I want it to be seen. I want someone to be so bothered by it that they have to confront me and debate me. That's how you grow, IMO. So anytime anyone else fucks up, I automatically feel like it should be highlighted, as that's the way I would like to be treated. I'd much rather have an offensive post stay, be seen, and deal with the work that results from the fallout, as that is, even if stressful and arduous, an opportunity for growth. The thought of posts being censored, corrected, or hidden really, really bothers me. If someone were to sock WoV and come in calling me a savage, hatchet packing, redskinned animal who should've died off with the American Bison, I can't say I would remain stone cold and unflapped. But I would still want that post to stay because it says nothing about me and everything about them. And since that is the way I personally operate, it's hard for me to productively do things another way. This way is the only one I know.

Those are my views, anyway. Hope it answered your question. If not, I'll be here to clarify.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful repsonse. But I hear alot of I,I,I,...ME ME ME.
For example years and years ago, business went by the golden rule "treat people like you would like to be treated.
More progressive businesses changed that to"treat people as theywold like to be treated". Meaning the views, the tastes, the sensbilities, the needs of the world do not revolve around your needs, tastes and sensibilities. The first golden rule I listed is very ego-centric. The replacement recognizes that people like to be treated in ways you might not think about for yourself.

For example I have been in retail many years. Personally when I go into a store...lets say Home Depot.....I hate when someone comes up to me and asks if i need help when I enter, while I walk down the isles. Maybe its a man thing..like asking directions....but I dont like it and dont want it.
Does that mean I dont ask people if they need help finding something where I work...because I need to treat people like I like to be treated?

If all the mods have that philosophy, then there is a wide range of how customers are treated...all in the name of me me me...

Its a business. Whether you get paid or not does not change a customers expectations. Once someone walks into my store and puts on the uniform...customers dont care what their pay rate is....they just want to be treated well and consistently. And they want to see their neighbors treated well. This is the reason people off duty are usally not allowed to hang out with people who are working...because when customers recognize them as someone who they have seen work there....they expect service....and dont want to hear..."i am off duty and not getting paid"

If you arrive on wov, and put on the uniform of a mod....then there are expectations. If you started to get paid tomorrow, I have no idea what extra I could expect from you.

Maybe there are mods that treat people poorly and hide behind the line "i dont get paid so what do you expect'. If thats the attitude...then its hurtfull to the business. I am not saying you have that attitude.

I am just saying that, that 2 mindsets that you mentioned.....1) thats how I like to be treated and 2) we dont get paid therefore...... are mindsets that can cripple a business.

this is a "for profit" business with advertising and money making possibilities. And the people who contribute to the board in part are helping to draw volume of people to the site with their time and effort. Its a yes/yes deal for both sides. The members and not leaches that just take. The members should not feel indebted. They both give AND take. However they are not treated as "givers" just "takes".

this is mikes place....too bad
dont let the door hit you in the ass

this is the prevailing attitude that drives people away.

Now I cannot say that I noticed that prevailing attitude with you......but I am just responding to the general view that I an others have seen and have commented on

And in commenting on it, I was suspended without a reason given.

So whats the sense of listing things, if transparency is not being adhered to consistently

the attitude, mikes place/mikes rules is the antithesis of the attitude customers want to hear. Look at this site. The admin treats us like valued customers and doesnt add rules without discussing it with the customers
I have never been told to feel free to leave..or not to let the door hit me.....
And when I questioned a handling of an issue, the mod here never threatened to suspend me like that woman did with demango.

No one wants to be mistreated. Especially paying customers. And yes you have paying customers. They pay with their free time and expertise.
Time is worth something.Expertise is worth something. Effort is worth something. They are paying customers....kind of like the barter system. No cash exchanged.

 

Larry you got banned - who cares at this point- you really just come across as bitter - you don't like the rules don't join the forum- join another- I don't like the rules of nude beaches- guess what? I don't go
The restaurant cafe martarano has a rule- Zero menu changes- don't even ask- guess what you don't like it don't eat there- the owner says its on the menu- just like Mikes rules- so you really should just go fuck yourself

 

nothing
you made very interesting points
have a nice day

 

LarryS keeps making the business model/customer service analogy. Personally, I don't think that analogy really works here. But neither do I like the "Mike's living room", "you are an invited guest", analogies. It isn't Mike's living room, it is a message board. And while there are rules, and sometimes the rules are posted, sometimes the rules are made up on the fly as you go. I was banned for something I posted on another message board, which is a rule no one ever heard of because it didn't exist. Even Mike's explanation started out " I usually don't care what people post on other sites, but....". I object to that.

In my situation, first Norm Wattenberger and then Mike, tried to take the power that they have to control what is said on their own site and extend that to include what someone can say on another totally unrelated site. I mean who do these guys think they are some sort of self appointed 'kings of the internet' controlling speech throughout the internet? Norm has been doing this type of thing for a long time, but Mike re-wrote his own rules in an effort to side with and protect someone he describes as a friend. That is my gripe!

I much prefer this analogy by Larry. In the unique situation of a message board, the contributions of the member in time and effort in the form of their posts and other contributions (I shared my experiences in a blog as well as did a Q & A that I was asked to do), means that these members have something invested, they have some skin in the game. They may not be equal partners or anything like that, but they are not just customers, nor invited guests.

At the very least these members are entitled to be treated respectfully and fairly without having rules made up against them on they fly, as we go. I think it is reasonably for these members who have contributed to the success of the site to expect a little objectivity from managemnet. In the event that a situation arrises that is so toxic that it becomes impossible for two feuding parties to both continue, I would expect the past contributions of each party to be the criteria considered, not whether one party is a friend or not. And by the way, my particular situation only rose to the point that both parties could not continue because one of the parties (Qfit), insisted that be the case. I never asked anyone to restrict or censor his opinion, as he did. As far as I was concerned he was welcome to voice his opinion, even to the point of disputing everything I said. That is the way opinions work.

 

If Wov isnt a "for profit business"....then what is it? A charity?
Either its a for profit business....or it isnt. Its a simple answer.

If it is a "for profit business".....then there are certain expectations inherent .

posters are indeed customers. But instead of spending money...they spend time and effort and expertise. Its a barter system.

So why shouldnt they expect to be treated with the respect that a customer would expect? Treated with the consistency that a customer would expect. Why shouldnt their time and effort be valued.

What business can survive if a customer gets treated differently based on which manager is on duty when they visit.

I believe the fact that member visits are deteriorating, shows that there is a customer service expectation that is not being met. The same type of expectation that you have when you walk into your local retailer. You want to feel valued and be treated consistently well. And you dont want to feel t he angst of seeing your neighbors mistreated.

Yes wov is a business...and with it comes the customer service expectations that is attached to any business dealing with people.

you make things too complex. You say its not a business, but is not mikes living room, that its some undefinable entity. Well if that the case...being this obtuse undefinable entity....then there is an excuse why things are like they are. There is no model to compare to. Therefore they can say that they are doing just fine.

 

Do you not find it odd that you comment on the condition of wov on an entirely different site when you are a mod of wov? Can you not have this conversation over there? Exactly as you've stated it here? If not, why not? Could your comments here put your employment on wov in jeopardy?

 

That's an interesting point, but this is the internet. One must think how an 'anonymous person with an anonymous personal attack' ISN'T anonymous when propagated all over the internet and can be easily found with the many search engines. The only good thing is it's only linked to a forum alias, but in many cases, the real name is used. And one can only hide behind a fake alias only so long, as just reading some threads can reveal a persons real identity. When does an insult being spread over pages and pages of google become a legacy? This crap can last forever.

 

Again, unless a person announces to the world.....I know nate....I have been in his company many many weeks/years/ months.,,,,,and nate is a lying hypocrite. Ok I can see that carries some weight to someone reading it..and it would carry some weight if the person really knew you and you would take that as an insult.

But someone just saying something negative with no inference that they know a person well.....has little credibility with the outside world and shouldnt with the recipient

 

No odder than any other forum posting.

I was speaking with LarryS. LarryS cannot post over there.

I don't keep quiet even when it threatens my actual job.

 

You're not taking human nature, specially lazy human nature..."it's on the internet, it must be true" into account perhaps.