The post that was quoted here has been removedi see nothing wrong with canvassing ideas here before going to Site Ideas. that's what i did in the case of the Culture Forum, and with the support shown for it in GF i was able to go to Russ and ask him to implement it. he put it to a vote, it got up, and soon enough we had a Culture Forum. so yes, i agree, the owners are responsive. but to get the numbers for an idea, i find that raising it first in GF is the way to go, as not so many people read SI. Russ seems more inclined to implement stuff for which there is significnt demand,a wholly reasonable approach. as for moaning, what have i to moan about? i've never been banned. i'm just looking at ways the mod process could be made more transparent and more accountable to paying customers. as someone said, power attracts the corruptible.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyTry to ignore Catfoodtim. It was his neverending abuse that started this whole fiasco in the first place.
i see nothing wrong with canvassing ideas here before going to Site Ideas. that's what i did in the case of the Culture Forum, and with the support shown for it in GF i was able to go to Russ and ask him to implement it. he put it to a vote, it got up, and soon enough we had a Culture Forum. so yes, i agree, the owners are responsive. but to get the numb ...[text shortened]... nt and more accountable to paying customers. as someone said, power attracts the corruptible.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyWhy do we need to understand these decisions made 'behind the scenes'? They don't involve us. There's no reason to assume we're entitled to details of why people receive forum bans or what their threads said. What other business does that? When you go to a restaurant, you're entitled to the food you pay for and reasonable attention from your waiter or waitress. You're not entitled to know why they no longer serve linguini with clam sauce, why the waitress is arguing with the hostess, or the immigration status of the dishwasher. If there is a problem between another customer and the waiter, the manager doesn't need to explain it to you, even if the customer ends up being ejected from the premises. You're not entitled to have all the information available so that you can make an informed decision about whether or not you agree with any course of action. You're entitled to good food. That's it. As a customer here, you aren't entitled to be handed information so you can see if you agree with decisions or not.
that's just stupid. what i was asking for is the information we need to understand these decisions made 'behind the scenes'. the point is that they shouldn't be made 'behind the scenes' at all, but in a publicly accountable way.
yes, yes, we all know that that is in the TOS. i wasn't disputing that
RHP can ban people if it wants, only that it wo ...[text shortened]... ly one - i guess being part of the 'inner circle' must give you a woodie, does it?)[/b]
Originally posted by DrakeFoxWhat you said vs. what everyone heard:
Yeah. Another one.
A number of months ago I played a few matches of blitz with somebody, each time defeated with ease. At the time I was slaving over moves and articles and games in an attempt to gain a usable grasp of the Sicilian Dragon and King's Gambit (no small task, of course). Impressed by his play, I asked him if we could play a few more games, ...[text shortened]... ies. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
Yeah. Another devotee of Captain Chesspants.
A number of months ago, wagging my vestigial tail with excitement, I played a few matches of blitz with somebody, each time defeated with consummate ease. Funnily enough, I swear I could smell the faint odor of stale milk during our matches. But I digress, at the time I was giving my little monkey brain quite a work out, slaving over moves and articles and games in an attempt to gain a usable grasp of the Sicilian Dragon and King's Gambit (smugness… reaching… critical .. mass… must.. stuff myself… with Twinkies… only know… smug git …antidote). Impressed by his play, with my best imitation of a demure and somewhat awkward schoolgirl, coyly I asked him if we could play a few more games, including a OTB shag fest.. er, meat up…meet up. With the joyful glee I’d come to expect from party clowns and catholic priests, he was happy to agree. What's more, he agreed to help me one-on-one with my games, including full analysis of a couple.
It turned out that he was a tireless chess hack and pompous pontificator of the game, dedicating hours of time for his subjects, including myself, for free. He even went so far as to send me one of his videos, titled “Captain Chesspants and the Black Bishop Fianchetto”, in order to help me improve. Curiously, all of the moves were played out by actors dressed in balck and white leather bondage gear. Outside of the game, I found he had soft hands, a great interest in small Asian children, and, with a tenderness I won’t soon forget, we shared a great deal.
Discontent and a forlorn unhappiness tore at Arrakis and ultimately resulted in his departure for greener pastures. Banning is such a messy word.
Why? Did he cheat? Was he a bad member? Was he just simply unpleasant (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Say it ain’t so.)?
Of course not.
While many of you may suspect that I have no idea what I’m talking about, I assure you that Arrakis was banned on close to nothing. He's gone as the result of excessive weenie touching by a mod who wouldn’t take no for an answer. He's been banned because he could no longer idly take the unwanted advances of a lecherous, power hungry moderator and pushed back against the questing fingers and sweaty grasp of a moderator drunk on power. Somebody who was looking for a reason to use his tasty Jello pudding pops, found the smallest one he could, and lashed with it. Arrakis is banned because he did not tolerate the intolerable, because he didn't consent to somebody simply because they were a mod.
Respect is something that is earned, not given. The moderators expect to have divine rights, and whoever does not submit to their rapacious advances is gone - it's that simple.
Was Don (Arrakis) compensated for said weenie touching? No. Was he given a good spanking for the first "offense"? No.
All things considered, RHP, the unrepentant hog waffling of paying members is bad business, don't you think?
Particularly bad business when legal action takes place, no doubt. Let loose the dogs of war!
Again, I may be talking out of my ass, but, if this person is such a menace that they are to be banned, then why are you having such difficulty with people who support him? People who he's helped and spoken with and supported and spread Smucker’s Raspberry Jam on while trying to teach them some rudimentary grammar. Consider that there's a possibility your moderators need to try to keep Mr. Monkey and the Jumbles in their pants and spend their time fishing or getting jobs as carnies, because what's happening is the removal of every weak-willed, chubber, PAYING member who have ever made RHP a plonkerific place to be.
And that's just bad business. The horror, the horror… just think of the Children.
"Ping pong is very dangerous because it tends to attract people who are truly insane, people who seek ping pong domination only for the sake of ping pong domination."
"Ping pong attracts pathological personalities. It is not that ping pong corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
Lets hear it for squishy Captain Chesspants.
1 edit
As a subscriber, you're "entitled" to whatever you and the provider agree you should get for your money. There are no absolutes here. If transparency encourages people to become members/discourages members from leaving, then it probably makes good business sense for Russ to provide it.
As far as it being none of our business, as a member of any organization, actions taken against other members can very well indicate actions that may one day be taken against you. If people are being banned and maintain it was done improperly, I'd certainly like to hear the evidence. Just leaving it all behind the scenes and never questioning the validity of the actions encourages abuse of power. Transparency is a fairly simple fix for that. Unless there are serious downsides we haven't heard of, I'd love to see more transparency regarding admin actions.
[edit]
This was in reply to pawnhandler. Sorry, should have quoted to make that clear.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe're lucky we're not on the Good Ship Hand O' Hate as y'all would both be keel hauled by the balls.
Arrakis was (and is) a tool.
He was banned for making insane threats against the Site Admins because he got a ONE DAY forum ban. He got off lucky; on the Good Ship Marauder, he would have been hung from the highest yardarm!
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI'm going to have to agree with you on this.
Why do we need to understand these decisions made 'behind the scenes'? They don't involve us. There's no reason to assume we're entitled to details of why people receive forum bans or what their threads said. What other business does that? When you go to a restaurant, you're entitled to the food you pay for and reasonable attention from your w ...[text shortened]... entitled to be handed information so you can see if you agree with decisions or not.
Well said.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerAgreed. Well put.
Why do we need to understand these decisions made 'behind the scenes'? They don't involve us. There's no reason to assume we're entitled to details of why people receive forum bans or what their threads said. What other business does that? When you go to a restaurant, you're entitled to the food you pay for and reasonable attention from your w ...[text shortened]... entitled to be handed information so you can see if you agree with decisions or not.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerThe restaurant analogy isn't a good one, because customers don't typically have an ongoing formal business relationship with the restaurants they frequent, as subscribers do to RHP. once restaurant customers eat their food and pay for it, that's it until they return, if they do choose to return. we're more like members of a club, which membership we have paid for. we want to be sure that we can't be ejected from the club on the whim of the bouncers, but only in cases where we've behaved so badly as to warrant it. requiring the decisions of the bouncers to be based on publicly available reasons that most of us can accept is a way of making sure they aren't abusing their power. therefore, the reasons why fellow members are ejected are our business - by making sure they're not being ejected on the whim of the bouncers, we help ensure that we won't be in the future.
Why do we need to understand these decisions made 'behind the scenes'? They don't involve us. There's no reason to assume we're entitled to details of why people receive forum bans or what their threads said. What other business does that? When you go to a restaurant, you're entitled to the food you pay for and reasonable attention from your w ...[text shortened]... entitled to be handed information so you can see if you agree with decisions or not.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyPower corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely... Lord Acton
i see nothing wrong with canvassing ideas here before going to Site Ideas. that's what i did in the case of the Culture Forum, and with the support shown for it in GF i was able to go to Russ and ask him to implement it. he put it to a vote, it got up, and soon enough we had a Culture Forum. so yes, i agree, the owners are responsive. but to get the numb ...[text shortened]... nt and more accountable to paying customers. as someone said, power attracts the corruptible.
🙂
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyYou sure go to some strange clubs if they have 'accountable' bouncers.
The restaurant analogy isn't a good one, because customers don't typically have an ongoing formal business relationship with the restaurants they frequent, as subscribers do to RHP. once restaurant customers eat their food and pay for it, that's it until they return, if they do choose to return. we're more like members of a club, which membership we have ...[text shortened]... ing ejected on the whim of the bouncers, we help ensure that we won't be in the future.
Originally posted by Crowleyfuture legend has it that the bouncers are accountable, but no-one really knows or cares because we get wasted on absinthe cosmopolitans and listen to the Strangest Living Curiosities sound check until the sun comes up, at which time we retire to the Crypt Room for a drop of the crimson and some much-needed shuteye.
You sure go to some strange clubs if they have 'accountable' bouncers.
