Why don't we clean the air on TE?

[Longroute]

“Respect is a two way street!”

Quite so Keith, and as I have said: Andrew’s statement doesn’t show respect for us.
This of primary importance.

The whole rigmarole about rules is absolutely spoilt on me and on most of the people who have participated in this forum. None of us has never said or meant or implied that the TOS or rules must not be respected. You are mixing things up here, mistaking us – i.e. people like myself, Lasse, or Malgorzata or Mariusz, or Leo, just to name you a few I know, for the people who violated the TOS. And this is a serious mistake on your part. None of us has never defended those people – so you cannot say all the useless words you have said. Is it so difficult to understand that we are not advocating the violation of the TOS?

“I believe I speak for all the mods when reponding to the question 'Which side are you on?' by saying I find the question insulting in the extreme.”

I’m really sorry – for you – if you find it insulting. That question is simply the natural consequence of Andrew statement. As I have said in my final sentence, up to now I appreciated your work and I thought you were on our side. I’m seeing now that your are doing your best to convince us of the opposite.

“We have actually received Review Requests where the main content of the request is along the lines of "Do you know how long I have been a member? How dare you expect me to obey the rules". It is that kind of arrogance that really annoys me.”

In that case of course you have all the reasons to be annoyed. Did you hear from me a justification of that behaviour? It seems to me that you are going off the track talking about those things and associating them with me or with other member participating in this forum.

By the way you have not answered directly my question whether you share the attitude of IB in writing the quoted high maintenance clause, do I have to conclude that you do?

Donato

[Longroute]

Just a brief post scriptum.

It’s really sad that you seem to refuse the help that we “moderate” people are offering to you.

Let’s do a step back, can we?

I can understand that the issue of honesty is a very harming one but no harm was intended by me or by the other people I mentioned (included Angshu). We only voiced what was implied in all the previous discussion. On my part I never doubted about your honesty, I only suggested a possible solution to the fact that so many people in Te doubted it. Can you see the difference?
If you can’t there is no point in continuing this discussion but I sincerely I hope you could. You will feel much better.

From what you both have said it seems that our asking for a clear explanation of the banning is equal to doubting about your honesty, but that is NOT. We are tackling the problem of this disgraceful distrust which has spread in TE after the banning of so many people. In dealing with this problem we have necessarily to discuss about the cause of this distrust. As some of us have said, one of the cause – but not the only one – is the lack of information about the reason of the banning. More so when several people complained about not receiving any email notification with the reason of the banning. It’s evident that something in the system is not working. It’s no use to deny everything and suspect that all those people are lying.

In the headline of my previous post I hinted at the problem of how you think to solve this problem of distrust. The only solution you seem to have is to get angry and talk about TOS. Does that really solve the problem? I dare think not, and I offered you another kind of solution. I don’t claim that my solution (or better Mariusz’s) will function, it has to be tested of course. But your jumping to the conclusion that I am insulting you and that I am on the part of those member who violated the TOS is not acceptable and saddens me.

Good night
Donato

[macondo]

Originally Posted by Longroute

Just a brief post scriptum.

It’s really sad that you seem to refuse the help that we “moderate” people are offering to you.

Let’s do a step back, can we?

Donato

Hello Denis.

I'm not sure that I know what the 'help' is that you are offering. Unless Marisuz's proposal is supposed to help us. I don't think it would.

I'm glad you are taking a step back. We have had many friendly exchanges through critiques over the last few years.

After what you have written in response to my piece, I will just remind you of what Lasse wrote:

1) The reason of every single photo deletion or ban would be explained by the moderator in detail. That means "breaking TOS" would not be enough, because that is not informative enough for other members to make their own opinion.

Do you agree with that?

If so, then I still ask WHY? Not only is it impractical and very time-consuming, but it seems to me to put the moderators to some kind of examination every time a decision is made. That is not what moderation is. Maybe I am wrong. If so, I would cease being a moderator.

Moderation is a fact of life on sites like TE. Moderators' extensive participation in forums is not common. On other discussion sites that I belong to, posts are deleted with hardly any explanation or no explanation at all, and there is no possibility of discussing or challenging the ruling. Surely I am showing my commitment to the notion of community by being here. In no way was I being disrespectful of the members. There is on this site a lot of scope for members to discuss and dispute decisions; my observation is that some members have been abusing that ability. I also have observed my own capacity to make errors of judgment and interpretation.

I think that if someone believes the proposal is a good idea, perhaps TE could do without moderators altogether.

I'm trying to address the proposal in a reasoned and polite way, but I've drawn a personal reaction from you.

And here it should be underlined the attitude that IB showed towards us when they wrote the following statement in the TOS:

“High Maintenance Clause: Any member who occupies a majority of admin or moderator time unnecessarily will be shown the door.”

Do you share this attitude Andrew? Do you honestly think it’s a fair and correct thing to be said in a community?

I suppose the owners can say what they like. Perhaps the language and tone of the Clause could be questioned. We think it's a community, but for IB it's a business. There's always a tension between those two things. That clause doesn't influence me in any way. I spend a LOT of time on here, often helping people with technical problems or writing emails to further explain photo removals etc. Some might say I am wasting my time in this forum thread, but despite your reaction I wouldn't agree with them.

Andrew

[Buin]

Hallo Andrew!

I observe the discussion in this forum attentively and I'm more and more amazed how you moderators are hedging in order to avoid any concession, any self-confident coopertion, any avoidance of absolutism. Somehow we are going round in circles.

Your sentece „The owners can say what they like“ in this context somehow is unmasking - and I think that this thinking isn't helpful at all here – and everywhere. Look around in the world and see what this thinking caused, especially in the last few years …
We up here – you down there … it's simply incredible and frustrating.

[Longroute]

Hello Andrew,

“Hello Denis.”

My name is Donato (:-)

“I'm not sure that I know what the 'help' is that you are offering. Unless Marisuz's proposal is supposed to help us. I don't think it would.”

Maybe you are right. But my point was that Mariusz’s proposal was only a starting point or a draft. As I have said I wanted to submit another proposal to complement or improve that one. I don’t think I’ll do it now because I’m seeing that there are too many difficulties even in accepting this first draft.

“After what you have written in response to my piece, I will just remind you of what Lasse wrote:”

“1) The reason *of every single photo deletion or ban* would be explained by the moderator in detail. That means "breaking TOS" would not be enough, because that is not informative enough for other members to make their own opinion.”

“Do you agree with that? If so, then I still ask WHY?”

Yes, I agree. It seemed a proper thing to be done considering that many people complained about not receiving any email.

“Not only is it impractical and very time-consuming,”

I guess you are right here if that has to be done for every case. But that was not my idea. What I was going to propose before our conversation took a unpleasant turn was to give detailed information about the banning or the deletion only in those few cases where the members did not feel satisfied about what you have told them. Reading their complaints I had the impression that they really didn’t understood your reason because they were too concise (or even no notification was sent). So Lasse’s proposal seemed the logic step to be done.
I don’t know how many cases such as this are happening – if it’s a large number I suggest to ask IB to fit the bug in the email system – if you say it’s impractical and very time-consuming I suppose we’ll have to quit this idea – yet it’s a pity because I feel that each of us has the right to know why one’s photo has been deleted.

“ but it seems to me to put the moderators to some kind of examination *every time a decision is made*. That is not what moderation is. Maybe I am wrong. If so, I would cease being a moderator. “

I agree that this has to be avoided. I can understand that it’s not nice to be forced to justify your decision.
We should find a reasonable solution to this delicate point.

“On other discussion sites that I belong to, posts are deleted with hardly any explanation or no explanation at all, and there is no possibility of discussing or challenging the ruling”

Bad for them. Better not to follow their example.

“Surely I am showing my commitment to the notion of community by being here. In no way was I being disrespectful of the members. There is on this site a lot of scope for members to discuss and dispute decisions; my observation is that some members have been abusing that ability.”

I perfectly agree with that. You showed a great deal of commitment and did not offend anyone.
What I meant in my previous post is that the sentence of yours I have quoted had serious disrespectful implications. Maybe you were not aware about those implications.

“I think that if someone believes the proposal is a good idea, perhaps TE could do without moderators altogether. “

Come on, don’t be too drastic now. (:-)

“I'm trying to address the proposal in a reasoned and polite way, but I've drawn a personal reaction from you.

And here it should be underlined the attitude that IB showed towards us when they wrote the following statement in the TOS:

“High Maintenance Clause: Any member who occupies a majority of admin or moderator time unnecessarily will be shown the door.”

Do you share this attitude Andrew? Do you honestly think it’s a fair and correct thing to be said in a community?

“I suppose the owners can say what they like. Perhaps the language and tone of the Clause could be questioned. We think it's a community, but for IB it's a business. There's always a tension between those two things. That clause doesn't influence me in any way. I spend a LOT of time on here, often helping people with technical problems or writing emails to further explain photo removals etc. Some might say I am wasting my time in this forum thread, but despite your reaction I wouldn't agree with them. “

I’m glad to hear that Andrew. I regret that I let myself being carried away by your answer, and so I quoted that clause. By the way that was one of the clause that I’d like to eliminate or change, but I suppose I was naïve to think that IB would ever do it.

Donato

[Keitht]

For the time being I will comment only on a couple of the issues raised.

Firstly, whether or not e-mails are sent when images are removed. I receive a copy of sent e-mails to my personal e-mail address - not an internal address for this site. Currently there are nearly 150 from TE all received in January. That would indicate that e-mails are being sent and I would suggest that the only reason they are not being received is to do with the way the e-mail system at the recipient end is configured. That might be at the ISP server and its spam filters or user e-mail and spam filter.
I have had problems in the past when attempting to register on sites which generate an e-mail requiring a response to complete the registration process. No e-mail received, yet when contacting the site they confirm that one was sent and to the correct address. I actually created a Hotmail address, used that and the the e-mail was received. That example clearly indicates that the issue was at the receiving end. It seems that many ISPs have filters to capture what they percieve as spam, and capture a lot which isn't.
Even from TE I have the occasional e-mail appear in the Spam box despite the fact that they all originate from the same source. E-mail is a far from perfect system.

Secondly - do I agree with the 'High Maintenance' clause. As Macondo says - it could have been better worded, but what other option do we have with a member who constantly posts images which break the TOS, reposts images which were removed even after discussion with the member (so they must have received the e-mail), refuses to accept the explanation for removal and bombards the mods with e-mail after e-mail?

Finally for now - Effectively having to gain approval of the entire membership before removal of an image. The closest parallel I can come up with for that would be the requirement for a government to have a referendum before each and every change in the law. Utterly impractical and would stop all operations dead it their tracks. We (mods) have been put into place to make those decisions and I would love to get on with that jobs AND to find time to post images of my own. The constant arguments in the forum are making that next to impossible at present.

[macondo]

Hi Donato!
[My apologies! ]

Thanks for your much more conciliatory contribution. I'm glad you can see the practical problems of the proposal and have made some concessions. For my part, I concede that mistakes have been made, and will again, but not through dishonesty or other malign motives. C'est la vie. I probably expressed a point in a way that sounded a little high-handed. Further, I think perhaps some of the TOS should be examined carefully to make things a little easier for all of us. Let's also hope that some glitches in the emailing system can be ironed out.

The most important thing is that we remain civil and polite while having disagreements. Frank is probably right - we're possibly going around in circles - although I doubt that he meant what I mean: that in the end we all meet up where the circle closes, where we find that we would all of us like things to be as they were when... when? Probably quite a long while ago! Or are we just nostalgic for something that we just imagine existed?

I think this thread should probably be closed; not moved or deleted, just closed, and maybe it will be, as it seems to have gone as far as it can go.

Anyway, I wish you all the best.
Andrew

[macondo]

Hi Lasse.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply
It's very late on Sunday night here, so I'll just refer to a few of your points:

Originally Posted by ellelloo

Can that really be so, that you mods are not technically able to access a deleted photo unless a Review Request is sent? That sounds strange to me. As a "webmaster" myself, I am actually interested how that restriction works!

It appears that in the last few days we have gained the ability to see removed photos as soon as they have been removed! This technical problem took some time to solve!

I also understand and accept the idea of communicating privately between moderators and members and avoiding complaints on the forum. However, this process should also work, technically and in practice. We should not read in the forum messages like "My photo was deleted 2 weeks ago, but no explanation was given yet".

The explanation should automatically be included in the removal email. It's clear that from the wording of many, many requests for a review of the decision the reason for removal IS getting through. But it also appears that sometimes this does not happen; I don't know why this is so, but it is unacceptable. However, a member only has to ask for an explanation and it will be provided.

BTW, why is it so totally unacceptable to raise questions of deletions or bans on the forum? Is it offending the mods?

It is against the TOS to do so and I think in general that's a wise rule. But I think it has been shown that Moderators are prepared to discuss some controversial matters and grievances in a civil, polite way. As a moderator I'd only be 'offended' by vulgarity, rudeness, someone attacking me or other members and moderators personally, or by fabricated conspiracy theories and rhetorical questions which cast doubt on the Moderators' integrity. I wouldn't be offended by a reasonable question, reasonably expressed, or any other sensible comments. The irony is that angry people rarely achieve what they want in an open forum because they make their targets become defensive. Sometimes, as has been stated often enough, an unpleasant situation arises when a member does not accept a Moderators' final ruling or won't enter into a reasonable discussion with the Moderators about it, preferring to go to the forum to start an angry thread, possibly before the matter has even been discussed or resolved, or even without having challenged the original decision. Sometimes requests for reviews of decisions just take the form of abuse! I don't think anyone has put a good argument for the members' forum being the right place for the routine raising of those matters, except perhaps where a member has documentary evidence that because of an error made by the Moderators a real injustice has been done, and there is nowhere else to go but the forum. Hope that answers your question.

Regards,
Andrew

[Moderator]

We thank you all for participating to this forum and we hope we all have learned from it.

Awaiting for a better understanding of each other in the future, we must now close this thread as it doesn't answer its original purpose anymore.