He and I have talked and he agrees that I made the right move but out of curiosity, how do these things tend to play out on your forum? I've never been on a forum where no one is banned and I might could learn from that.
Among the first things I ever discussed regarding the building of violating voices were the limited and specific circumstances under which someone would be denied membership. I have found it difficult to explain, because what I say is at odds with what people predict I mean. For instance, the notion that there was intellectual criteria for membership. I said there was not, but the idea never went away. I stated over and over that interest in such a community environment was the prerequisite for joining. An intent to impede pursuit of the concept was, pretty much, an indication that the interest did not exist. That was never really a problem. People knew where they were going.
The list of exclusionary qualifications was repeated here and there, multiple times, and I stated it to pretty much every joining member. Any behavior that was in violation of the law would not be tolerated. Personal, offline relationships were to be considered in making decisions about membership. Situations in which a person's presence felt threatening to another person was to be grounds for discontinuation of forum participation.
The only adjustments I have made have had to do with privacy. A leading objective of mine was to facilitate open conversation. Depth. A fair percentage of members expressed a desire to participate in this in an environment in which the casual observer (employer, landlord, spouse... whatever) would have difficulty stumbling upon a confessions meant for the community, as opposed to any authority in one's offline life.
Never banning anyone. Only admitting the intellectual elite (subjective as the designation would be). These are hyperboles misdirections designed to allow criticisms that could not otherwise exist.
Now, specifically.
Caddy wanted to be banned. She stated it as a personal objective and fought, tooth and nail, repeatedly, to alienate the necessary people to achieve that goal. I was the principal resistor to the calls for action against her. Caddy is awesome. I have long thought this, and I still do. I still discuss missing her presence on the forum, and I discuss it online as well as in offline social gatherings. I felt that the ideal response to her words was to respond with words. It began to seem like the battle... Caddy's battle, was against me. It may not have been in intent, but it worked that way in practice. a dozen people felt as if they were repeatedly attacked and battered. Eventually, Caddy went on a D-Day type offensive. I didn't even ban her then. I made a thread, asking that she do something differently. She attacked that. Everyone was on me to do something. In the end, Tara de-activated her. I did not object. I was at the point where I felt I would have to do it myself.
I will address Fishbulb directly, as I apprently have not done so yet.
Fishbulb, it has been my greatest frustration that the reasons I de-activated your account (and another) could not be discussed, per request of the person whose privacy offline well-being seemed to, possibly, be jeopardized by your presece. Yours was another I resisted for a long time. A certain other member called me out as absurd for thinking a particular post count glitch attached to your account had nothing to do with you. She suggested it was hostile power lauding with the assistance of someone who was hack-savvy. I figured I should check it out. I did, and the glitch was common to forums on our old host. I only mention this to illustrate how NOT hostile my position on your membership ever was. A certain other member had an offlnie stalking issue. It was very complicated and pervasive. Information from closed sections of the forum was getting back to the stalker. It was suggested that you and Devery were a part of this person's social circle. I made an angry post, but I didn't KNOW anything, so I didn't take any further action. That member, one of my favorites from Shadowbox and Violating Voices, was compelled to leave. As time progressed, your presence was characterized by two things. Hidden lurking and the very, very rare critique of the way someone was being discussed... with a suggestion that such should not be allowed. People were nervous. It was paranoia. I don't doubt that, but I was being approached with concerns that were said to be shutting people down from their communications. I talked to Devery about this on MSN, and I told her that the decision was upsetting for me. Still, I felt compelled to weigh the value of open participation by members who were starting to feel like they might need to change the way they posted. For weeks, I was getting the quiz, and I kept seeing the lurk... hidden, non-posting. The paranoia was contagious, and I broke down. I regret the way it went.
It might interest many of you to know that two hostile racists were also de-activated. That upset me very much, as it seems like an ideological ban, but some members actually felt very threatened. Again, I resisted., but this fell within the parameters I had discussed as basis for banning. Personal attacks and issues of discomfort in the environment by other members. I have to weigh that.
Offensive statements, pictures, concepts, politics... persistent arguing and fighting. None of these things warrant any sort of censorship or restriction and certainly do not warrant banning. Any change in status I have enacted has been a personal struggle for me. If that seems dramatic, then you don't know my heart. I would have invited Devery and Fishbulb back ages ago if it didn't seem like something that would be so logically distasteful to them.
Caddy... I still lobby for your return.
Author
Topic: THE OFFICIAL ALYSS/MAN ALICE HATE/LOVE/Bitch&Moan thread (Read 57723 times)