Community Moderation: Infractions, warnings, bannings; How do they work???

[David Hosobuchi]

This system of "User Infractions" is based on points given for the violation(s), or the frequency of violations in a defined period of time. Because we believe that the use of the "Frequency of Violations" would be too much like a "3 Strikes & You're Out" attitude, not allowing for the difference in severity of the violation. Therefore, we will be using the point system.

In this system specific violations of the Terms of Service and Community Policy located in the FAQs will be configured as "Infraction Levels".

Infraction Levels will be configured as follows, this is a rough description of how it works....

Points: A point value based on the severaty of the violation. For example, spammers, pornography, & researchers would get enough points so that they would be immediatly receive a permanent ban, while someone who merely lost their temper & posted something inappropiate would get a very small number of points.
Expiration Time: Each infraction has an expiration time. These are set to the amount of time that this infraction stays in the user's "Infraction Record". Once the expiration time has passed, the points are removed.
Ban Levels: These are set at levels so that temporary or permanent bans are given when member has recieved enough points for that level. Example: A one day ban may be set for 5 points, 2 days at 10pts, where a permanent ban might be at 50-100.....
Suspension vs Banning: For this system, BTC has created a new group for those that have recieved a temorary ban. This is the "Suspended User" group. When a user is placed on a temporary ban, they are given the permissions of this usergroup rather than the "Banned" usergroup. This way, a member that is suspended, can still be allowed some forum priviledges. Please Note:

Infraction points add up. If a user receives enough Infraction Points to add up to a Ban Level, before the expiration time is up for the infractions, then they will be banned for the period of time that the number of points allows.
Infractions are Reversable This may only be done by communicating privately with the moderators. While I am currently working on creating a forum for appealing/discussing decisions with the moderators. Until then, email is the way to do it.
Infractions are Discussed. Because of these new features available in the updated vBulletin, we now have a forum where all infractions given, automatically create a discussion thread. Here moderators are kept informed about actions taken. Since no moderator is above making errors of judgement or just clicking the wrong button, this gives a space for the other moderators to comment and give their opinion. If it is decided that any action taken was improper for the situation, then it will be adjusted.
This will be an ongoing development. Over time, we will be developing this system, editing and amending it to more effectively & fairly give consequenses to situations that commonly occur here. When new issues regarding violations of BTC policy, new infractions will be defined. This system is in a trial stage here at BrainTalk Communities.


Because of the issue brought forth regarding a reformation of how moderator actions are carried out, BTC is giving this system a try. It may fail, or it may be the best thing since frozen OJ.... But in the end, you will be asked for your input if BrainTalk Communities considers aborting it.

My personal opinion; Is that it will give an approach to our online community moderation that shows more "Mercy under the Law", so to speak. All infractions except the most extreme all are "forgiven" over time. The only ones that get permanently banned will be those who insist upon repeatedly breaking the rules. Since all warnings given are also governed by the same expiration period, when dealing with minor infractions, usually only those with a previous warning for that offence will receive infraction points. If I can tweak things right, "Suspended Users" will have a forum where they may freely and openly discuss their position with the moderators.

What you can do as members: All of us volunteering at BTC always invite members to post any ideas, suggestions, and even constructive critcisms & complaints. I will be talking to John about a way that these issues can be more effectively addressed than by email. I will be working towards a specific forum for such posts. This forum might end up being one that is more heavily moderated than others, we will have to see what can be done.

By all means, please feel perfectly free to comment or ask questions, however, BTC does expect that they follow the Community Policy of being Supportive, Respectful, & Informative.

Thank you for your participation & cooperation.

David Hosobuchi
Community Manager

This post may be edited or ammended as developmemts to this system are implemented.

[mmcc53]

David,

Thank you for your link. It was very helpful except one question still remains and now another one has arisen.

Neither you nor the moderators (at least the two I tried) accept emails or pm's. How then would one contact anyone about a problem with a warning, etc.?

Also, I thought that pm's warning people of "bad behavior" were supposed to be private (hence the name PM). Is copying those "PMs" to people other than the one being warned permitted?

I am trying to get answers to these two questions for a reason, but am unable to PM anyone in charge to get an answer to a specific question. How do I do that?

[Bobbi]

Hmmm :confused:. When I look at the following, I see a list of the moderators who accept PM/E-mail:

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showgroups.php

[Kamie]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[David Hosobuchi]

David,

Thank you for your link. It was very helpful except one question still remains and now another one has arisen.

Neither you nor the moderators (at least the two I tried) accept emails or pm's. How then would one contact anyone about a problem with a warning, etc.?

Also, I thought that pm's warning people of "bad behavior" were supposed to be private (hence the name PM). Is copying those "PMs" to people other than the one being warned permitted?

I am trying to get answers to these two questions for a reason, but am unable to PM anyone in charge to get an answer to a specific question. How do I do that?

Q. Moderators not accepting emails.
A. Modorator must accept emails from all members. I believe the problem right now is due to the default settings when I recreated the moderator accounts. Looks like I'm to blame for this, I will reconfigure all moderators to accept emails.

Q. Aren't warning messages supposed to be kept private?
A. The discussion of a member's banning publically has always been a definate no-no, I would say that the open discussion of warnings given should be too.

Thanks, I hope this helps.

David

[mmcc53]

Q. Moderators not accepting emails.
A. Modorator must accept emails from all members. I believe the problem right now is due to the default settings when I recreated the moderator accounts. Looks like I'm to blame for this, I will reconfigure all moderators to accept emails.

Thanks - I looked at the list Bobbi posted which seemed to indicate what you are saying, but it wouldn't go through. I was able to email a different moderator and asked her to pass the message to the moderator I was trying to reach. Maybe that will work

David[/QUOTE]

[SalpalSally]

And, the Mod's names are.......Please?

[David Hosobuchi]

I have finished configuring all moderators to receive email from all users.

[mmcc53]

Thanks, David.

[TexRose]

And, the Mod's names are.......Please?

Sal, you read my mind!~!~!~! David, we have asked this of John several times in the past week. Now, we are asking you, MOD'S names, Please. If you are not willing to furnish these names then please tell us what forums these MODS usually post from. Thank You.

[*Joy*]

David,

Thank you. I see you're working on solutions.


As time goes by, will the numbers of infractions that equal a certain consequence be more clearly defined? I had to laugh at your "permanent ban might be at 50-100.....". That's quite a spread there. :)

[Meg1]

Q. Aren't warning messages supposed to be kept private?
A. The discussion of a member's banning publically has always been a definate no-no, I would say that the open discussion of warnings given should be too.

Thanks, I hope this helps.

David

How would you define "open discussion"? Mmcc53 asked about discussing warnings in PM's--not on the boards. Are you really attempting to regulate what is said between members in PM's? If so, are there other rules about what may and may not be discussed privately between forum participants in PM's? And how would this rule be enforced?

Also--if you're keeping score--I'll weigh in on the side of having anonymous moderators. I think if you revealed the forum identities of the moderators you would increase, rather than decrease, charges of favoritism and suspicion about selective warnings/bannings/suspensions. I especially like the rule that mandates no public discussion of disciplinary action--it keeps the noise level down.

[jcc]

Thank you for addressing this. I understand it takes time to formulate a plan, but I am really pleased to finally see something in writing to let us know that you are working on this :).

I had a small thought about moderators, named vs. unnamed.

I had been on a forum several years ago where the moderators were named and involved in the forum, and all h$%l frequently broke lose. Nobody dare have a different opinion than any of the moderators or they would be pounced upon, and threatened to be or actually be banned. They often responded with unkind words, beneath the professionalisim I would expect of a moderator, and that always went unchallenged because to challenge a moderator meant to be banned. The moderators stuck together like glue. I really felt at the time that it was a potential conflict of interest to participate as both member and moderator.

In fact, that was at least part of the reason I requested a new forum be opened here (the other more important being that I had learned about the many neurological problems associated with gluten). :). When I first came to BT, I thought it was GREAT that the mods were unnamed. To me, I felt it was a real benefit.

Now, I have become familiar with another moderation approach, which involves a team concept with named moderators who are also participants in the forum. I don't know about the behind the scenes here at BT, and whether there was ongoing communication between moderators or not.... in regard to EVERY problem.

In any case, I think there needs to be ENOUGH moderators so that every complaint or concern can be addressed and given appropriate consideration. That takes a lot of TIME. I think there is at least a chance that the moderators here at BT were understaffed, and burned out from dealing with too many problem situations. Way too much nonsense for sure.

What I am getting at is I think that whether the moderators are named or unnamed is not as important as the quality of moderators (personal characteristics such as patience, integrity, honesty, solution oriented, etc), adequate number of moderators, and the methodology used to deal with problems. I really like the team concept I've become familiar with where every potential problem thread or concern is viewed and discussed by several to many moderators, and no single person is ever making the final call. Drawing from a wide enough base of moderators will protect against any calls being made due to personal bias. And yes, there does need to be some method of appealing cases, but to be honest, if a team approach is used with direct communication taking place with the members as the situations arise, the need for appeals will be reduced.

In any case, I am really happy to see that members are being heard and that BrainTalk is willing to work toward making this a better place.

I look forward to hearing more :).

Cara

[steve m]

David,

Thank you. I see you're working on solutions.


As time goes by, will the numbers of infractions that equal a certain consequence be more clearly defined? I had to laugh at your "permanent ban might be at 50-100.....". That's quite a spread there. :)

It sure does beat the 0-1 system of the past

[David Hosobuchi]

David,

Thank you. I see you're working on solutions.

Yes, I have been working on solutions since the second week of June, when I was forced to take the forums offline to protect the database....

As time goes by, will the numbers of infractions that equal a certain consequence be more clearly defined? I had to laugh at your "permanent ban might be at 50-100.....". That's quite a spread there. :)

That description was meant to address the hypothetical....:o

And yes, as time goes by, and as new violations of BTC policy arise, more "User Infractions" will be defined. Their concequences will be determined by the point value & expiration time as discussed & determined by BTC Administrators & Moderators.

:cool:

[southernlady]

Infractions are Reversable This may only be done by communicating privately with the moderators. While I am currently working on creating a forum for appealing/discussing decisions with the moderators. Until then, email is the way to do it.

David, I KNEW this was possible and fairly easily done since you don't have THAT many usergroups. But here is the thread that explains how to make a forum that only the admins/mods and the user involved can read (the user can ONLY read and reply to their own post).
http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24274

[David Hosobuchi]

This thread is not the place for that topic. For issues of this magnitude, I feel it is best to deal with one thing at a time.

The subject of Moderator Anonymity will be addressed by John Lester. Granted, it may take a few days for him to get to it, but he is very much aware of the issue, and I am fully confident you will hear from him about it.

;)

[lisag]

As many neurological illnesses are quickly terminal... my question is how do members know that a member has just not passed away when they disappear from bannings ?..
Doesn't a members sudden disappearance lead to more off site gossip..and I guess the real concern is if your not in a certain clique ...you could be unneccessarily worried about someone...
If someone asks for instance on a site has anyone heard anything about JOHNDOE.. Do you know if he is OK?...Are we allowed to at least say yes we heard from them but they are not posting here at this time..and leave it at that..or are we not allowed to say anything at all about them period while they are gone?
And if none of us have heard anything from JOHNDOE... and they were banned , suddenly disappeared without warning,, could the moderators be emailed to check on their health status? Could the forum simply be told by the mods that you have had contact with this member and they are OK without going into further details. Lisag

[mmcc53]

I am removing the original posting here since it was more personal than is probably a good idea and David responded in a PM that what happened was a mistake and will be corrected in the future.

Thank you David.

[HeyJoe]

I was pleasantly surprised to read about the point system and expiration of points leading up to banning. Sounds like you are going in a positive direction with that. I feel that not being able to answer someone has been banned, when someone is asking where someone else is, is uncomfotably close on a cyber level to disappeared persons in dictatorships. To not even be able to acknowledge that someone ever existed is over the top in my opinion.

[mister]

Is JL anymore reachable now than he has been over the past year? Just asking because eaarlier in the year mods were saying that they were unable to reach him to ask him questions or get answers to their own questions or questions of forum users.

Hope if he doesn't have tthe time to dedicate to the site someone else will be designated to check in on things on a regular basis so that things wont get entirely out of control as they have been in the past.

This site once was a welcome place to come until people thought that threats and rumors were the way to deal with things. as most of us know a rumor can go around the world before anyone hears the truth and often they choose not to listen to the truth because they have been poisoned by the vile lies, falsehoods, rumors and threats. They need to be stopped (whoever is doing them). The only way they can be stopped is if the mods care to hear both sides of an issue before acting. To date I have seen no evidence that this is the case in this site

Sad to see that this site is running without a Captain at the helm and seems to be adrift

[Spiney]

While I was not totally satisfied with the TOS and the way they were enforced, I can honestly say that in the last ten years, I never found myself in conflict with the management and or it's representatives. I chose not to cross the line. It was that simple. If I couldn't do that, I would have moved on.

The proposed changes sound like they may be a welcomed improvement for both the members and moderators. For what it is worth, I like the team approach. I think it will provide a "safety net" for everyone.

While it is a given that not all will be, or for that matter, want to be content, regardless of what the changes are, I think this is an important first step. Best wishes to all!!!!!

[pam]

I hesitated to be too direct here, but since no moderator has favored me with an answer, the question was asked because I was warned in a PM from a moderator that a post of mine had "innapropriate content," but, what disturbed me was that it said a copy was sent to a member of this forum, who was named.

To me that makes a mockery of "privacy." It means that some other member was sent a copy of a warning sent to me "privately" and is now free to spread that information to whomever they want.

I don't mind either way - either chastisize me publicly where I can defend my position, or do it privately, but forbidding me to answer the complaint while sending notice of it to other members here is unfair - let the word be spread with no chance for me to respond.

Before the same or another moderator deletes this post because it is "inappropriate," please notice that I attempted to contact two moderators and have named neither the moderator nor the member who received the copy of the PM.

If you have a "more appropriate" way for me to get my question answered, I hope you state it instead of deleting this post.

David said earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by David Hosobuchi [View Post]
Q. Aren't warning messages supposed to be kept private?
A. The discussion of a member's banning publically has always been a definate no-no, I would say that the open discussion of warnings given should be too.


I sincerely hope this issue is addressed here on the forum since it is a classic example of why folks have lost trust in the moderators over the last year or so. This should never have happened.

[David Hosobuchi]

While I was not totally satisfied with the TOS and the way they were enforced, I can honestly say that in the last ten years, I never found myself in conflict with the management and or it's representatives. I chose not to cross the line. It was that simple. If I couldn't do that, I would have moved on.

The proposed changes sound like they may be a welcomed improvement for both the members and moderators. For what it is worth, I like the team approach. I think it will provide a "safety net" for everyone.

While it is a given that not all will be, or for that matter, want to be content, regardless of what the changes are, I think this is an important first step. Best wishes to all!!!!!

Yes Spiney I agree. I feel this system will be much easier when the variables have been defined. I believe it will make things much easier for all, members & moderators alike.

The foundations of this system are being forged right now. We have even had the help of some SPAMers to give us some practice....:p

[mmcc53]

I sincerely hope this issue is addressed here on the forum since it is a classic example of why folks have lost trust in the moderators over the last year or so. This should never have happened.

David responded in a PM that what happened was an error and will be corrected.

David, the "multi-quote" button doesn't seem to work.

[David Hosobuchi]

In order to keep the flow on topic in this thred, I have moved the posts regarding the restoral of the BTC database backup to this thread.....

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=703

[mister]

Is there a list of rules that applies to the moderators aswell as the users? If there is could you tell me where it can be located?

[pam]

In this system specific violations of the Terms of Service and Community Policy located in the FAQs will be configured as "Infraction Levels".

Do we currently have a TOS in place ? I checked the FAQ and most of what I see applies to how to post, how to use various functions, etc.

I am noticing various posts disappearing, others being locked for whatever reason, and one thing I noticed today was that a post made by meg was entirely edited by a mod or Admin.. but there was no 'edited by" left at the bottom like there used to be. In this case it was obvious since the entire post had been removed and replaced by the words of the moderator, but what if only part of a post was taken out ? If someone else were to read that post after it was edited, how would they know the original author didnt write it that way ?

I hope that if posts are going to be edited for content, the 'footprint" is left so anyone reading realizes the post has been changed, since at times, removing certain parts of a post can change the entire meaning.

Pam

[Kamie]

This is just a suggestion,

When closing a post, can the moderators please just give a reason?

An example would be:

Post closed due to fighting. or Post closed due to spamming.


It is a little frustrating seeing the lock on the post and not knowing why it was closed. Thanks! :)

[DKCharlie]

It seems to me that the 'relationship' between moderators and members has become even more strained with the current setup, not more open and agreeable and friendly for anyone.

I agree with why moderators may choose to remain anonymous, but if they are moderating under an anonymous system of moderating #'s, why do they feel the need to moderate in stealth mode and in secret, where they won't even publically acknowledge what actions they have taken? Moderators are removing, closing, editing posts without accepting public recognition for their actions. How about moderators being required to make their actions public by leaving some indication of who did what? I mean, if they're already anonymous, why do they feel the need of this extra layer of secrecy in that they won't even attribute their actions to themselves?

This infraction system seems to have created even more problems, it is so subjective of what any particular moderator might find 'inappropriate'. I don't see how this system helps moderators and members work together. It seems to me that it creates more divide between them as members receive these 'penalties', apparently warned through a PM. Yet they can't address the apparent 'offence' with a moderator because while moderators may send PM's, they don't receive them. And while they may receive emails, they don't return them. There seems to have already been some mistakes made with arbitrarily giving people 'infractions' when they were by mistake. Yet the only way to address this has been by publically posting on the forum about it. Yet these posts are now being removed by moderators or else edited out by moderators. So how can members discuss what may be arbitrary and incorrect infractions? Especially if you don't know who gave the infraction?

Obviously there HAVE been some mistakes. But if you can't write about it publically and if you can't communicate with a moderator privately (actually send and receive communications), then how is this system fair and helpful to members?

And why aren't moderators expected to take responsibility for their actions by leaving some indication of what each one specifically does? Why aren't they required to keep themselves visible so that members know who is here and who is doing what? They are named 'moderators' with numbers, not any personally identifying information - so why do they need to act so secretively and anonymously beyond this in their actions too? Why can't they take responsibility for what actions they do by showing publically who did what or even know is here?

It's like they don't trust the members (or else don't want to accept responsibility for their actions). And members are losing any trust in these anonymous moderators who want to do things as anonymously and secretively as possible without any means to resolve issues because the moderators have distanced themselves so much and want to keep members at arm's length as much as possible.

If moderators are only identified by numbers, why do they need any other anonymity and secrecy in what they are doing? Why can't they put their 'signature' on their actions so we know who is doing what? And if we can't post here about erroneous infractions or questions about what specifically a member has done to warrant an infraction (or a banning), and moderators are unavailable any other way to communicate with us (unless they just send out a PM but then refuse any replies), how is this going to lead to anything but confusion, frustration and even more suspicion and distance between moderators and members? It's definitely more confusing when a moderator can alter the post of a member and not even leave a notice that it was done at all. A member whose post has been changed deserves a note put that what remains is NOT their words. And they deserve to know who to talk to about it and not have their posts removed if they try to bring it to someone's attention (or be given an infraction for it).

This system just doesn't seem to have any respect or considerations for the members in it, and more to do with making moderators even more anonymous and secretive and powerful. How about if we break down this divide a bit more and at least have moderators acknowledge publically what they've done so we know who did what?

And could we please know if the moderators are all different people or instead if it might be one person acting as different moderators? Could we try to bring the moderators CLOSER to the members instead of farther away by these walls of secrecy and anonymous post-editing? What is the big deal of a moderator actually putting their moderating name to their action and taking responsibility for it?

Thanks for letting us offer feedback. Hopefully we'll all start to break down some walls and find a balance that makes this place better than it was before.

[~scrabble]

DKCharlie ......... well said. Thanks for writing what you did.

[DKCharlie]

Could someone please give me the link to the forum rules or paste the rules themselves here?

I would like to follow the forum rules.

The summary to Forum Feedback says:

Forum Feedback is a place to discuss general ideas about the BrainTalk Communities - a place to ask any questions you may have, to talk about things you like, things you don't like, new ideas about how our community may grow, and new features you'd like.

That's what my last post did, ask questions and ask where I could find the rules that apparently led to a post of mine being removed.

I can't find the rules.

So I had a post removed and I don't know why because there wasn't anything wrong with it. But because I can't find the rules here to try to figure out for myself what I might have done wrong, I post about it and ask, and that post gets removed. And I then get a one year infraction because I asked what rule I had broken and where were the rules that I had apparently broken.

In asking where the rules are and which one of them I broke, I was apparently challenging moderators which is another rule here that I apparently broke. Where is that rule?

So apparently I broke 2 rules. Except I can't find the rules so I don't know how I could have broken any. If there are no posted rules, how can I be expected to follow them and how could I have broken any?

Can someone please post the rules so that I know what not to do and I can quit breaking rules I know nothing about and so I can stop receiving infractions?

Can I at least ask a general question: how can someone be given an infraction (1 year!) for something that is not listed as a rule here? And how can posts be removed for breaking rules that aren't listed here?

I would very much appreciate a public reply as I think everyone needs to know what the rules are so people don't inadvertently get into trouble like I keep doing for breaking rules that aren't even listed anywhere as rules.

How can I break rules if they aren't listed here as rules? Am I to guess what the rules are?

I don't want to break any rules. If there are no rules listed here, can you please remove my infraction and please return my two posts that I made that were removed. If I did break a rule, can you please direct me to where these rules are. I want to make sure that I follow them. If I only knew what they were.

[pam]

Charlie, I asked about the terms of service earlier in this thread but it has not been addressed yet. If you click on the FAQ above and scrol way down, you will see this

By accessing this website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms of our Disclaimer and Privacy Policy
as well as the BrainTalk Communities Terms of Service.

But if you click on the TOS link, you get a pop up box saying
Invalid FAQ Item specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

I hope someone can clarify this soon since it definitely is confusing.

Pam

[DKCharlie]

Charlie, I asked about the terms of service earlier in this thread but it has not been addressed yet. If you click on the FAQ above and scrol way down, you will see this

By accessing this website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms of our Disclaimer and Privacy Policy
as well as the BrainTalk Communities Terms of Service.

But if you click on the TOS link, you get a pop up box saying
Invalid FAQ Item specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

I hope someone can clarify this soon since it definitely is confusing.

Pam

Hi Pam,

Yes, I also quoted the problems that I found when I tried to access the TOS and the FAQ's here. My post was removed though. I'm very confused about this and I would appreciate some guidelines so that I can make sure that I don't get more infractions or posts deleted. I try very hard to be supportive, and I don't think I've ever written a mean word in a post. That's why I'm surprised that I'm getting my knuckles rapped and then rapped again and again with all sorts of punitive actions (deletions, year-long infraction warnings against me) when I am really trying to understand what rules the moderators are trying to enforce. Where are these rules? I've looked and I can't find them either. Yet I'm being punished for not following some phantom rules.

Here's what I wrote before:

I'm looking for what I did wrong. I went to the TOS link at the bottom here and the FAQ link. When I clicked on both, it said:

Invalid FAQ Item specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
What Term did I violate?

When I registered, I agreed to:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

I didn't violate any of those terms either.

The only way I can get to any sort of rules is when I click on the FAQ link embedded in this statement:

Welcome to the BrainTalk Communities.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But I can't find any relevant terms that indicate what may have been wrong about my post or what rules I am to be guided by in posting. I spent some time writing up my comments so they were respectful and non-argumentative. They were on topic to the thread that was about the two different forums and the complaining that's been going on. To have them disappear when I can't find any rules at all that I broke... what have I done?

I want to know in advance so I don't spend my time writing a post in theme to a thread only to have it removed.

Could you also explain this statement from that same FAQ section:


Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgeable in the subject of the forum they are moderating.
Are moderators on certain forums experts and/or members of those particular forums then?

[Jolene]

DK I am curious... What did you post? Send it to me in a pm so you don't get in trouble. A few others have had this happen also.

[mmcc53]

This message has been deleted by David Hosobuchi. Reason: Inappropriate for public discussion.

Okay, but a bunch of us have contacted you and/or mods about the problem with no response. If we then try to post a question about it, we get the message deleted. Obviously you and the mods are aware of the problem since multiple posts about it (by several people) about this problem have been deleted.

With this particular problem, how do we get an answer/solution?

There must be SOME way to have the problem resolved/questions answered. What is that way?

Most of us are trying hard to follow the TOS as we remember them.

Surely it is appropriate to ask: Okay, we have a problem which is normally handled by contacting mods/you privately. If we get no response, what do we do then?

[David Hosobuchi]

Why not try using email??? Also, Moderators & Administrators do need to sleep like everyone else. They are also time volunteers, this is not a job for them. They get no compensation, no one at BTC Inc does. Some only work on weekends. You may not get an immediate reply. Sometimes you may have to wait a few days....

But to remind everyone right here, right now, it is not appropriate to continue reposting anything that was previously removed by a Mod/Admin. This is viewed as "Publicly Challenging a Mod/Admin" and is not tolerated. Those that continue to do so will be dealt with. Warnings are for that purpose. A warning means exactly that, a warning. When a member ignores a warning, and repeats the same violation, warnings are no longer issued. Infractions are given after that.

Please do keep in mind that we are doing everything possible to quickly finish the restoral of the BTC Inc. site while being online. This requires the cooperation, support, and patience from the members. I'm sure John Lester will have the FAQs back up soon.

[*Joy*]

Why not try using email???

David,

I can't speak for anyone else but I AM using email and I'm finding it a bit ridiculous that concerns and problems are NOT being addressed.

Edited to add:

David,
Your edited post makes it look like I challenged you after you posted this. Your original post was a quote of mmcc's post and your commentary was only: "why not use email"

For the record, my post came before your warning about tolerance on the forum.

[DKCharlie]

But to remind everyone right here, right now, it is not appropriate to continue reposting anything that was previously removed by a Mod/Admin. This is viewed as "Publicly Challenging a Mod/Admin" and is not tolerated. Those that continue to do so will be dealt with. Warnings are for that purpose. A warning means exactly that, a warning. When a member ignores a warning, and repeats the same violation, warnings are no longer issued. Infractions are given after that.




But I didn't do this. I didn't save what was removed by a moderator (as I explained in my last deleted post) so I couldn't and didn't repost it.

So why did I receive an infraction for something I didn't do and how could it be considered a "warning" when I actually received a 1 year punitive measure because of it? That doesn't sound like a warning, it sounds like I receive an infraction, a penalty. This is based on the explanation of this infraction system given by David at the beginning of this discussion.

1. I didn't repost material.
2. If I had of done what I was accused of doing, the rule was only told to us after I posted so how could I have broken a rule that didn't exist here before I was accused of breaking it and given an infraction for doing so?

As I said above, I couldn't find any rules here.

But to remind everyone right here, right now, it is not appropriate to continue reposting anything that was previously removed by a Mod/Admin

If this rule was was given to me after I made my post, how could I receive a punitive action before this? How could I have known what the rule was if it had never been listed here until David just did it? And if I didn't do something, why was I given an infraction anyway?

In my last post, I specifically said that I hadn't kept a copy of my deleted post, so how could I have reposted it? This is what I wrote:

I can't even prove it now because I didn't keep a copy of my post and its gone. I can't even prove that I didn't do anything wrong because my post was deleted. Do I need to save everything to show that I didn't do something wrong?

So now I need to make sure it's understood that I didn't do what I was accused of doing and upon which I was given a 1 year infraction - reposting what had been removed by a moderator. But in doing so, I am now reposting what was removed by a moderator. How can I clear my name without breaking a rule? I have been accused of reposting something that I didn't do. In order to prove that I didn't do this, I need to repost what was subsequently removed to prove that it didn't contain any reposted material, which is why I apparently received the infraction.

And I don't see how what I did in asking for some explanation for the removal of my original post is any different from what just went on below, where Meg was not giving an infraction, but instead she received a very nice explanation from a moderator. Why was I given an infraction for asking why my post was removed and Meg1 was given an explanation?

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4861&postcount=6

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4881&postcount=8

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4866&postcount=7

Can you understand why I am confused about why I received an infraction here? There was no rule existing under which I am now being punished under and I didn't do what David has now explained that I did anyway. :confused:

[DKCharlie]

Originally Posted by David Hosobuchi
But to remind everyone right here, right now, it is not appropriate to continue reposting anything that was previously removed by a Mod/Admin

David,

I wonder if you could please put these rules here in a more obvious place that we can all easily access rather than tucked into a post? As I mentioned before, I looked and looked for the rules to make sure that I wasn't breaking any and they were not listed under the Terms of Service or the FAQ's or anywhere that I could find. Still, I received an infraction for breaking a rule that wasn't listed anywhere.

To be sure that I am not accused of breaking this or any other rule here that I may not even be aware that it IS a rule here, could you please put all the rules somewhere visible and easily read and understood? I would hate to miss another posted rule because it's tucked into the middle of a post and receive more infractions or penalties or deletions because of not seeing it or knowing that a rule existed.

Thank you.

[DKCharlie]

And getting back to my original problem of having a post removed when there are no rules listed here for me to figure out what I did wrong,

how can I determine why my original post in the Epilepsy forum was removed and what rule I somehow broke in my post there that caused it to be removed?

To make sure that I don't make the same mistake again or break some rule that I am unaware of,

can you please tell me why my original post was removed? It was on-topic to the thread, it was not mean, it flowed from the discussion.

What started my whole participation in this is that a post that I made suddenly vanished. I could not have broken a rule because there were no rules here that I could find (not that I think there was anything wrong with my post because I don't think there was).

And if for some reason I can't be told what prompted the removal of my post and what rule I broke,

can I please be shown the rules here so that I don't inadvertently break any more rules?

As I have said many times before, I want to follow the rules and not have posts removed for apparently breaking the rules. But I can't follow rules that I don't know about.

[mmcc53]

Why not try using email??? Also, Moderators & Administrators do need to sleep like everyone else. They are also time volunteers, this is not a job for them. They get no compensation, no one at BTC Inc does. Some only work on weekends. You may not get an immediate reply. Sometimes you may have to wait a few days....

But to remind everyone right here, right now, it is not appropriate to continue reposting anything that was previously removed by a Mod/Admin. This is viewed as "Publicly Challenging a Mod/Admin" and is not tolerated. Those that continue to do so will be dealt with. Warnings are for that purpose. A warning means exactly that, a warning. When a member ignores a warning, and repeats the same violation, warnings are no longer issued. Infractions are given after that.

Please do keep in mind that we are doing everything possible to quickly finish the restoral of the BTC Inc. site while being online. This requires the cooperation, support, and patience from the members. I'm sure John Lester will have the FAQs back up soon.

I am not challenging you or the moderators. I have been EXTREMELY supportive of you and them here and on other forums. I have been supportive through the entire time BT was down, and for many years before that. In fact I quit another forum specifically because they permitted attacking BT and the moderators.

I also understand that this is unpaid, volunteer, etc.

And I did use email. I also used PM. I tried several different private avenues.

Perhaps if the deletion notice on any of the messages which were deleted had included one other sentence like "we're looking into it," the frustration level wouldn't have been so high.

I didn't repost anything - I tried to rephrase my question in a very neutral way. I also didn't get a warning, as your post seems to imply, about asking this question.

I simply wanted to deal with a problem, not challenge any warning the moderators did or did not give.

How long do you want us to wait for a response from a moderator before we contact you? Or do you prefer that we do not contact you at all?

[southernlady]

Here is the link I followed to the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy: http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item_mgh#faq_new_faq_item_mgh_ policy
It's broken, says to notify an administrator.

Here is the link I followed to the BrainTalk Communities Terms of Service:
http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item_braintalk#faq_new_faq_ite m_braintalk_tos
It's broken, says to notify an administrator.

The only link that isn't broken is the one at the bottom that just says: Privacy Statement inside this menu: Contact Us - brain.hastypastry.net/forums - Online Patient Support Groups for Neurology - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

If people don't have rules to follow YET (other than common sense ones) how can they be punished. And this is what I got when I registered:

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of BrainTalk Communities will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of BrainTalk Communities, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of BrainTalk Communities reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

I have read, and agree to abide by the BrainTalk Communities rules.

BrainTalk Communities rules link is one of the two busted. Liz

[DKCharlie]

If people don't have rules to follow YET (other than common sense ones) how can they be punished. And this is what I got when I registered:



BrainTalk Communities rules link is one of the two busted. Liz

Liz,

I posted all of that information too (but my post was deleted)! I tried really hard to:

1. follow the rules.
2. find and learn the rules that I needed to follow.
3. find out on my own what rule I might have broken that caused my first post to be removed.

Unfortunately, there were no rules. So when I asked about it and where the rules were, I got an infraction for actually trying to find out what the rules were and which one I apparently had broken. I was trying to point out that I couldn't find the rules here and I got penalized for doing so. Apparently that was another rule that I had not known about but had broken nonetheless.

How can someone get penalized by a one year infraction penalty for trying to find out what the rules are in order to make sure that they don't break any and to find out what they did wrong to make sure that they don't somehow do it again?

If at all possible, I would very much like my infraction removed.

:(

[janie]

Can I make a gentle suggestion (that's all it is)...until BT is fully restored, including TOS, guidelines, etc...that we simply use common sense regarding what can and cannot be posted without moderator intervention.

That said, if it does occur that something has been moderated that one feels shouldn't have been...that we allow those that need to address the problem time/thought to the problem?

Many of the issues that are being posted over and over in the forum feedback seem to be due in part to incomplete software restoral, incomplete user settings, blah, blah, blah.

We argued long and hard on the other board that we want Braintalk back, and it certainly seemed that we wanted it, in one form or another RIGHT NOW!

JL brought it back in parts and pieces, and seems to be in a no-win situation, as bringing it back before database restoral, and proper user settings, seems to be as disturbing to some, as it not being here at all...:mad: :confused:

So, here's the suggestion: allow the powers that be get everything back at 100%, give everyone a clean slate (especially as it concerns "infractions"), sans, obvious "spammers", and then let's see what remains.

Lastly, if this place just isn't acceptable (after that), there's another [forum] going at full speed that I am sure would welcome you. :rolleyes:

Insisting on replies to emails, etc about infractions that may or may not be [infractions] once everything is 100% restored, is only slowing down those that are trying to get us back online fully, and with our valued database, IHMO. There's nothing "sinister" going on.

[Spiney]

Yes and for the time being I think the conspiracy theories need to be set aside. Mgt. can not make any real progress if they are having to constantly put out fires.

[Jolene]

Spiney my pal.... If I were not afraid of hurting you I would slap you on the back... That makes total sense about the fires. That's kind of why I've been saying the things I have. To give "the other side of the story". As I see it anyway. :D

Time to drive so I can pay bills!

[mmcc53]

Can I make a gentle suggestion (that's all it is)...until BT is fully restored, including TOS, guidelines, etc...that we simply use common sense regarding what can and cannot be posted without moderator intervention.

I think most of us are using common sense. But, well meaning people can disagree about what is "common sense." And new people especially may not be aware of the rules, some of which are not common to all web sites. For example, of course obscenity and personal attacks are common sense things that shouldn't happen, but maybe some of the new members are actually "new" and aren't aware of other rules, which are not the same as some other forums.

That said, if it does occur that something has been moderated that one feels shouldn't have been...that we allow those that need to address the problem time/thought to the problem?
Of course they should have time to address the problems, but some of the problems have nothing to do with "being moderated." Also some of the problems were mistakes which were corrected by David when he became aware of them - if you read back on this thread, you will see at least one in this thread.

Many of the issues that are being posted over and over in the forum feedback seem to be due in part to incomplete software restoral, incomplete user settings, blah, blah, blah.
Of Course that is the source of some of the problems, but if people don't post the problem, how would David be aware of them? I have seen that he has corrected several -- and thanked people for bringing them to his attention.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, but think that everyone should continue to post any problems they see since it is very possible that Da****JL are not aware of them.

We argued long and hard on the other board that we want Braintalk back, and it certainly seemed that we wanted it, in one form or another RIGHT NOW!

JL brought it back in parts and pieces, and seems to be in a no-win situation, as bringing it back before database restoral, and proper user settings, seems to be as disturbing to some, as it not being here at all...:mad: :confused:
I'm very glad that it is back, and personally am not as concerned about the database restoration as others, and like many here have thanked JL and David for restoring it.

So, here's the suggestion: allow the powers that be get everything back at 100%, give everyone a clean slate (especially as it concerns "infractions"), sans, obvious "spammers", and then let's see what remains.
Sounds good to me, but that is a decision which is totally up to the owners and moderators of this forum. This also sounds like another suggestion about how the forum should operate, which it sounds like you don't want us to make.

Lastly, if this place just isn't acceptable (after that), there's another [forum] going at full speed that I am sure would welcome you. :rolleyes:Isn't this the type of thing you want us to avoid saying?

Insisting on replies to emails, etc about infractions that may or may not be [infractions] once everything is 100% restored, is only slowing down those that are trying to get us back online fully, and with our valued database, IHMO. There's nothing "sinister" going on.
Maybe I misunderstand their roles, but I don't think the moderators are involved in restoring the database or the computers stuff. I think they are moderating only.

I think one thing which helps keep things from appearing "sinister" is being careful about discussing things when it is not clear what the issue is. Many of the postings which were deemed not appropriate for the public side of the forum are not challenges to moderator decisions. Please don't make it sound like we are challenging the moderator decisions, because many of us are not.

I have never challenged or discussed a moderator decision. The rules are the rules (even if they are not fully published) and the rules do not permit challenging the moderators.

[Lara]

can I please be shown the rules here so that I don't inadvertently break any more rules?

As I have said many times before, I want to follow the rules and not have posts removed for apparently breaking the rules. But I can't follow rules that I don't know about.

Hi DKCharlie, I saw all the highlighted parts of your posts here on this thread. Maybe everyone just needs to wait until John Lester is able to fix the broken links before posting anymore. Edited to add: I'm not meaning that in the sense of censorship lol, I'm meaning that if the TOS isn't posted yet, and it can't be posted/fixed until JL gets back to it, then there's not much anyone else can do about it. If John Lester isn't available to fix those links then nothing more can be done right now, immediately.

The night the forums went back online, I asked John if he could fix the links that are at the bottom of the forums. They include Disclaimer and Privacy Policy, BrainTalk Terms of Service, and a few others. Unfortunately that wasn't able to be done that night because so many other things needed doing, including adding each forum manually. That's my understanding. I'm sure that'll be done as soon as possible.

I know this doesn't help you with your difficulties, but until those links are fixed, none of us can see the TOS. There is the old Privacy Policy link though it's maybe out of date.
privacy
policy (http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/BTC_Disclaimer.html)

I'm sure if David or the Moderators had it in their control to repost the TOS and fix all the broken links, they would have done it long ago.

[*Joy*]

Insisting on replies to emails, etc about infractions that may or may not be [infractions] once everything is 100% restored, is only slowing down those that are trying to get us back online fully, and with our valued database, IHMO. There's nothing "sinister" going on.

Janie,

I'm not sure who you're addressing, probably no one in particular, but since I did post earlier about email replies from moderators I would like to express myself a bit more clearly. I am not insisting that a moderator reply to me via email, I am requesting a reply. As far as timeliness goes, it is imporant in the relationship between registered members and adm/mod. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

The particular emails for which I would like a reply to are not about an infraction. It is about another matter. I wasn't challenging a moderator or an administrator in my post though I admit I am frustrated.

I do value those who volunteer here. I have said so before more than once. I value JL's work. I value David's work. I value your opportunity to post. And I also value my opportunity to post and express myself.

I'm not going anywhere - unless someone makes me :). I love Braintalk. There are kinks to be worked out but it's going to take all of us talking about it.

[SalpalSally]

And getting back to my original problem of having a post removed when there are no rules listed here for me to figure out what I did wrong,

how can I determine why my original post in the Epilepsy forum was removed and what rule I somehow broke in my post there that caused it to be removed?

To make sure that I don't make the same mistake again or break some rule that I am unaware of,

can you please tell me why my original post was removed? It was on-topic to the thread, it was not mean, it flowed from the discussion.

Dear DKCharlie, Your post was removed in the EP Forum for an obvious reason, IMHO.

It did not go with the flow as you stated. It seemed accusatory and baiting an argument, to me. The Mod did leave a reason for deletion on your message.

As to how the Mod became aware of and then, made the decision to delete your post, may have been because it was reported to the Mods by the person you challenged or anyone who may have found your post troubling.

That is how the system works, DK. You may have received the infraction for challenging the Mods in public. Next time, an E-mail of your appeal/challenge to the Moderator in question, may be a better way to go.

This has just been my opinion, as I am not a Mod here, and have no way of knowing how this matter was actually handled.;)

[janie]

mmcc53...and others....

you are quite thorough, and no, wasn't addressing/attacking anyone/anything; and I had to add that another forum is available as many are still wondering if this IS the place for them. it was not meant as a sarcastic barb, it is a reality of finding the "right fit" for any seeking online support.

"spiney" (of which I am one) "interpreted" my post precisely...I think I used too many words (of which much can be read into and misunderstood).

I certainly underestimated "how" my suggestion, which more precisely was an observation, could be "taken".

I'll leave it with "spiney"... as am not interested in adding anything more to the issue...you guys got it all under control.

please, if you're gonna quote me (on this post), why bother?

my opinion isn't worth the effort, quite frankly. you'll be wasting your own precious time on an opinion not worth the effort. I'm not here for a fight...

[mmcc53]

I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, just clarify what appeared to be a misunderstanding about challenging moderators. I happen to like the rules here - which is why I have been a member for so many years.

I am not sure what "conspiracy theory" Spiney is talking about, so I am not sure what exactly you mean. If you want to PM me I am willing to explain what the problem is, but David has made it clear that he doesn't want any discussion of it on the public part of the forum.

[janie]

double dang...

... I was warned by a good, caring friend that posting (as opposed to lurking) was pointless, and she is smirking now somewhere on another continent, of that I am certain...

nothing to clarify, via pM or otherwise. would delete the stupid post that seems to upset/annoy/incur paranoia/irritation (is that it?) to so many, but your "quoting" has made that effort, not worth the "effort"

best of luck...moving on to other things...you made your point.:eek:

[*Joy*]

Janie, are you upset?

I gave your first post a lot of thought and decided that I was short in my reply to David. Sorry David. And thanks to you I hope I explained myself. That's all.

You have me all wrong if you think I'm trying to pick a fight. I think ALL of US together discussing things is definitely worth the effort. That includes you, you silly. Your opinion is important.

Edited to add: I apologize if anything I said upset you. I'm sincerely sorry.

[Mike Weins]

And getting back to my original problem of having a post removed when there are no rules listed here for me to figure out what I did wrong,

how can I determine why my original post in the Epilepsy forum was removed and what rule I somehow broke in my post there that caused it to be removed?

To make sure that I don't make the same mistake again or break some rule that I am unaware of,

can you please tell me why my original post was removed? It was on-topic to the thread, it was not mean, it flowed from the discussion.


Did you actually read the reason left behind? I can see it plain as day and it's quite clear as to why it was deleted.

[DKCharlie]

No, I didn't see the reason left behind. Thank you both for pointing it out me.

I strongly disagree with the characterization of my post and it was certainly not meant as flame bait or anything but offering a respectful opinion.

I can agree to disagree as we all bring our different perspective into it. My perspective is influenced by my intention in making the post which was sharing my opinion of the topic of the thread. "Flame bait" sure seems very very harsh to me as a characterization of what I remember that I wrote. I am very surprised by this description but it gives me an idea of the perspective that Moderator #9 brings to judging posts.

It gives me something to work with in making sure I don't step over a line in the future.

I didn't see that any comments had been made as to its removal. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention as that helps me understand the judgment that was made that precipitated action against my post.

[SalpalSally]

No, I didn't see the reason left behind. Thank you both for pointing it out me.

I didn't see that any comments had been made as to its removal. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention as that helps me understand the judgment that was made that precipitated action against my post.

You are very welcome DKCharlie. I hope things can settle down and be better for you now.:)

[Jolene]

Dang, would you drop it already! Email them and email Mr. Lester and David and handle it privately. I understand your frustration. However, you need to smell the coffee and realize beating a dead horse only stirs the flies and annoy everyone else around. :) (no I'm not saying the moderators are flies but they do hide on the walls and observe... ) :D

[SalpalSally]

beating a dead horse only stirs the flies and annoy everyone else around. :) (no I'm not saying the moderators are flies but they do hide on the walls and observe... ) :D

Too Funny, Jolene..http://home.earthlink.net/~sal.pal/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/harharhar.gif

[Paul Wicks]

So why was my thread entitled "Sorry not happy" closed for further posts???

I still never got an answer to where the money went. As Braintalk is non-profit isn't there somewhere we can see?

[Jolene]

I'm betting it was closed because there is a proper procedure to follow. Mail the administrator and request the address you write to for the paperwork showing those things. Just so you are aware, Mr. Lester is NOT required to post this online. Should he choose to he could. However, few organizations do that. Also, making uninformed, blanket accusations is not a constructive manner in which to conduct business when dealing with the BT administrators. Do your research BEFORE you run your mouth, not after.

[ASkicker]

Can I make a gentle suggestion (that's all it is)...until BT is fully restored, including TOS, guidelines, etc...that we simply use common sense regarding what can and cannot be posted without moderator intervention.


Janie,

Thank you so much for making the post that started with the above paragraph. You perfectly captured what I was thinking as I sorted through the posts in this thread. I knew I wanted to say something, but I wasn't sure how I wanted to say it (I tend to be a bit less, shall we say, diplomatic, when I see things here or in other forums that simply baffle me), and you hit the nail on the head. People are getting SO worked up over all these things when David keeps reiterating over and over that everything is in a state of flux right now and that they are working as fast as they can to restore the entire site. Until then, as you say, folks just need to relax a bit and use that wonderful process you talked about called "common sense." Such as, for the time being, why not just stay away from posting about topics that are almost certainly sensitive or controversial in nature and give the powers that be some time to get to those topics. For example, I am sure they are aware that no rules have been posted yet, and I am sure they will attempt to fix that as soon as they can. Almost everything else brought up in this thread probably falls under the same type of "they're aware of it and getting to it as fast as they can" caveat.

I guess I just don't understand why everyone is so worked up over the rules and who can say what, when. I have been a member of this site for over five years (as wolverinefan before the crash) and I can easily say that being banned or suspended was never, ever an issue, nor did I have any clashes with any of the moderators. Sure I had some disagreements with other members, but I just made sure my posts in such situations were respectful of the other person while disagreeing with his/her point of view. It really wasn't that hard to do.

Anyhow, well said Janie. Thanks for thinking your post through so that it came out as clearly as it did.

[mmcc53]

... I guess I just don't understand why everyone is so worked up over the rules and who can say what, when...
It is one thing for people who have been members here for years, but for new people, the rules may not be clear. Rules vary from forum to forum - and especially over what may or may not be said.

Its been 5 days, with one possible exception, since anyone posted anything about needing to know the rules. Why are you bringing this up again?

[ASkicker]

I'm just posting about it now because I just saw it today, NOT five days ago, so I thought I would post my opinion. Silly me for not realizing that there was a statute of limitations on posting, or that I needed your permission to post. I certainly won't make that mistake again.

[Jolene]

Hmmm... Even your name is slightly less than diplomatic... :D :p

[mmcc53]

ASKicker,

For someone who talks about wanting others to not post their concerns :

"why not just stay away from posting about topics..."

you response seems a little odd.

You don't need my permission to post, and others don't need yours. "Sauce for the goose....."

[razzle51]

Thanks David Hosobuchi for the update . By the way did you get my PM. Roz

[ASkicker]

Seeing as my name refers to my disease--Ankylosing spondylitis, or AS--and my desire to kick it out of my life, I think my name has nothing to do with diplomacy and everything to do with how I approach my fight with this awful disease. In fact, the main forum for AS sufferers is called Kick AS, so I have absolutely no problem with my name choice. Perhaps you should investigate things a little further before making fun of the handle someone has chosen to use, eh? That name has very personal connotations to me and represents my fighting spirit, so I don't take it lightly when someone mocks it. Everyone's name is different, and everyone's name is a very personal thing. Please think twice in the future before you choose to make fun of someone's name, especially if it's just to make a cute little point that you didn't agree with his/her post.

[ASkicker]

This will be my last post addressing you personally because it is clear that you didn't understand my first post and likely won't understand the point of any further posts. However, to expand on your answer to me: You chose to quote a very tiny phrase out of my entire post and therefore completely changed the context. The point of my post was that several people--yourself included--were posting over and over again about the same things that David has explained several times now that they are trying to get to. My post, on the other hand, was the first one I had made in this thread and did not repeatedly ask for the rules to be explained, or when the TOS was going to be posted, or when all the links were going to be fixed, ad infinitum. I was stating my opinion on how I felt about those people who WERE making such repeated posts about the same topic, not about those topics themselves--see the difference? And don't worry, because as I said, this will be MY last post on the subject to you or to anyone else on this issue. I made my point, you disagreed with it and chose to make your "saucy" and glib reply, now I will let the matter drop. (Please note that my post to Jolene came before this one and had nothing to do with any of these topics--it had to do with someone who thought they knew what my screen name meant when they really had no idea whatsoever. On that topic, I will always reply to any post that deals with my name.)

[janie]

ASkicker....

Well, you made me blush, and that's not easy to do...thank you.;)

And, I do remember you (well, your username mostly), and also, knew what your moniker referred to. Isn't it amazing how some can have such naughty minds!:D

(for the others) Common sense can apply to new and old alike. Common sense, as it pertains to posting to a new site, as a "newcomer" would also seem to dictate erring on the side of simple support, "getting, giving, sharing info/experience" rather than getting caught up in more sensitive/flaming issues, but I do understand that many insist on zero censorship, love a good fight, or the ability to mince words with others; and common sense is a highly subjective concept.:eek:

ASkicker, buddy, hang in there. I was recently had the HLA-B27 test (negative, thankfully), and know how nasty a problem AS is, and how very difficult it is to live with. I have also "been around" for many years and have appreciated those (both members/staff/moderators) that have worked towards making this a supportive/informative medsite.

My hat's off to you for dealing with such a crappy disease, and remaining obvioulsy upbeat, and striving towards a positive outcome to Braintalk. Thank you.

[Jolene]

Just so you know I was teasing you. I sometimes forget that my sense of humor doesn't translate well whether typed, spoken, or in person. I kind of figured it had a deeper meaning but one never knows until the person explains. I think it's a rather neat twist. ;)

PS- You shouldn't assume I had a problem with your post.... I don't recall saying I did. Being diplomatic or "politically correct" as some would say is nothing I choose to partake in. Yes I was teasing you, but the diplomatic part was more of a compliment. Diplomacy when dealing with illness or idiocy is pointless.

[Bobbi]

Hi'ya, ASKicker :).

I know how your screen name derived; I'm also a member at the AS forum you mentioned. My prob. is: I read more than I post there. (I lost my password when I replaced my HD :(). I've also got AS. There are a few more people here (at BT) who do as well.

Before BT went "down," I posted most often at the Spinal Disorders forum.

Anyway... I just wanted to say hello and hope that you continue posting, too! :cool:.