Conduct feedback

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear brian (the big bad boss):

Bgru once told me that there is a three strikes rule here, meaning on being given the third warning, you are automatically banned.

I think the three stikes should have a time or number of posts limitation, i.e., three strikes within how many days or how many posts; so that once the time period or number of posts is reached without any third wariing being given, the counting starts again from zero. Otherwise, eventually everyone is going to get banned.

In drafting a warning, the staff personnel giving the warning should specify the words, phrases, sentences, and even thoughts he thinks he can easily makes out, that are deserving of warning. The ground for warning should not be generally described, for example, that a post is insulting to particular posters.

When a staff personnel is inclined to issue a warning, he should first ask the posters whom he thinks might have been distressed by a particular message of a fellow poster: whether they indeed experienced any distress.

My two cents worth of feedbacks.

Susma Rio Sep




<admin edit: copy of CoC pasted in this message removed>

 

[iBrian]

Susma, everyone here at CR is given implicit warning on how to conduct themselves here, via the multiple posting of the Code of Conduct around the site.

I appreciate the feedback, but everyone must live by the same rules.

Plenty of flexibility is given to how this CoC is applied - but at some point a decision has to be made if someone persists in a disapproved of manner of posting.

It is not the responsibility of moderators to guide members through your posts, line by line - everyone here has to be able to take responsibility for their own words, and accept their consequence.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

God bless you, Brian.

Susma, everyone here at CR is given implicit warning on how to conduct themselves here, via the multiple posting of the Code of Conduct around the site.

I appreciate the feedback, but everyone must live by the same rules.

Plenty of flexibility is given to how this CoC is applied - but at some point a decision has to be made if someone persists in a disapproved of manner of posting.

It is not the responsibility of moderators to guide members through your posts, line by line - everyone here has to be able to take responsibility for their own words, and accept their consequence.

Some forty (40) minutes ago, I could not access your forum again; before that I was reading a private message from Suanni. I thought I was 'banned' again, or my IP was blocked again. Now, I can access it and am writing this post.

There is a three strikes rule or policy, then? But it's not stated in the Code of Conduct, is it?

About stating the words, etc., for the grounds of issuing a warning, I mean only the post occassioning the warning, not every post that every poster writes.

About attending to complaints if any from other posters before issuing a warning, I think it is good so that a moderator would save himself from the trouble on the one hand, and learn to be more balanced on the other.

You see, Brian, I never received any warning from any moderators, except Bgru, two in less than a week's time. I guess he's still learning the right ropes in the moderator's chair.

If anyone should be unhappy with me, it should be Vajradhara, and he is a moderator of a higher ranking than Bgru; yet this brother never issues any warning to me.

I never knew who are moderators here, except Bgru, because he issued two warnings to me. Now I know who they are by clicking on the button about leaders of the forum(?).

I will give some more feedbacks in succeeding posts.

Your Code of Conduct is very brief and very general, rather abstract. There are good points and not so good points in brevity and generality. The main bad point: great risk of abuse of discretion on the part of moderators.


Brian, God bless you, for this forum of which you are the owner and the supreme power. This is your house, you can use it and abuse it. You can invite people in and let them stay and use the facilities.

It is not a democracy inside your house; but once you let people in on an open invitation, you must instruct your house personnel and monitor them to very strictly observe courtesy with each and every one of them, and not issue warning left and right for any kind of so much as one guest seemingly being patronizing to other guests, namely, to this guest behaving seemingly with a patronizing or even seemingly with an insulting mien.

Again, thanks a lot for you forum.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[iBrian]

The Code of Conduct is quite implicit that a warning is a warning is a warning. Just because it comes from one Moderator gives it no less weight than if it comes from a different Moderator. A Moderator is a Moderator is a Moderator.

It is also not for members to start picking and choosing which part of the Code of Conduct they wil follow and which parts they will not. The Code of Conduct is the Code of Conduct is the Code of Conduct.

Susma, you have been warned repeatedly on various issues of your conduct: but rather than address your conduct as declared by the Moderators to you, you seek to devalue the Moderators themselves and the very code they work with.

I've stuck my neck out for you against advice, but I think it's time you took a break from here, and consider what your actual purpose on this forum is.