quote:

Some people aren't worth having as a customer. It's called "firing a customer". Meaning the income they represent isn't worth the aggravation they cause. You're that person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChrchofDrk

quote:

Some people aren't worth having as a customer. It's called "firing a customer". Meaning the income they represent isn't worth the aggravation they cause. You're that person.

After reading a lot of your posts over the years OsideGirl, I would say, in my not so humble opinion, you're one of those people too. So kettle, call the pot black much?

quote:

As for the rest...Meh, whatever. If I'm booted off the site, I'm not going to be ranting all over the internet about it. It's just a website.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Causatum

quote:

Most people know where the line is, and quite a few get off on "toeing the line".. some even get off on crossing it now and then, intentionally. A few even own up and admit it, giving that shit-eating grin with their hand caught in the cookie jar.

"Toeing the line" is a concept that only works when the line is firmly planted in one location and remains static for all. When a hypothetical OP who may happen to be egocentric, self absorbed, narcissistic and emotionally stunted elects to ban a chat member for life because of a slight that he feels impugned his fragile ego...while allowing others latitudes...then the whole "toeing the line" concept goes to sh*t.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact



Another thing that people don't get is that Mods are generally more knowledgeable about complaint history/prior offenses than other people floating around. Even as a user, you probably don't know if or how many times similar offenses have been logged regarding you. The Mods don't have to send you a warning letter every time this happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
This is frequently the situation. Eventually a Moderator will go "Fuck it, they're never going to follow the rules". Posting rants against moderation only adds to that view point.

There were a few posters in the forums that were perma-banned for that very reason.

quote:

[1/10 21:05:48] * <Causatum> makes <name withheld> a Disney princess...and then f*cks her

Then I can see why you were booted. Ewwww.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

[1/10 21:05:48] * <Causatum> makes <name withheld> a Disney princess...and then f*cks her

Then I can see why you were booted. Ewwww.

This surprises me. It is personal. If someone says "<LTE> makes <name withheld> a Disney princess...and then f*cks her", I very much doubt it would cause any Moderator watching this to ban that person. So...what is going on here since obviously you don't ban someone for personal reasons. Is the TOS involved here? I've read it once or thrice and perhaps I missed that part. If so, then "never mind".

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

[1/10 21:05:48] * <Causatum> makes <name withheld> a Disney princess...and then f*cks her

Then I can see why you were booted. Ewwww.

This surprises me. It is personal. If someone says "<LTE> makes <name withheld> a Disney princess...and then f*cks her", I very much doubt it would cause any Moderator watching this to ban that person. So...what is going on here since obviously you don't ban someone for personal reasons. Is the TOS involved here? I've read it once or thrice and perhaps I missed that part. If so, then "never mind".

quote:

They may do so, and they may ask and force you to leave at any time, for any reason, or even for no reason at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

They may do so, and they may ask and force you to leave at any time, for any reason, or even for no reason at all.

Then it is personal. If this were my website that depended on member growth and the resultant advertising revenue growth then I would reign in any Moderator who abused their charge to keep things within the Guidelines by removing someone "for no reason at all" and yet we have seen this occur over the years in cycles. I suggest selected Mods should already have a high personal power level so they need not derive their power from being a Moderator. I also suggest the chat side has lost it's growth pattern purely because of the Moderators. Why, I was looking at the statistics the other day and membership participation is very weak I suspect largely because nobody wants to actually participate and place themselves in a position of being removed "just because".

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

They may do so, and they may ask and force you to leave at any time, for any reason, or even for no reason at all.

Then it is personal. If this were my website that depended on member growth and the resultant advertising revenue growth then I would reign in any Moderator who abused their charge to keep things within the Guidelines by removing someone "for no reason at all" and yet we have seen this occur over the years in cycles. I suggest selected Mods should already have a high personal power level so they need not derive their power from being a Moderator. I also suggest the chat side has lost it's growth pattern purely because of the Moderators. Why, I was looking at the statistics the other day and membership participation is very weak I suspect largely because nobody wants to actually participate and place themselves in a position of being removed "just because".

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

This surprises me. It is personal. If someone says "<LTE> makes <name withheld> a Disney princess...and then f*cks her", I very much doubt it would cause any Moderator watching this to ban that person. So...what is going on here since obviously you don't ban someone for personal reasons. Is the TOS involved here? I've read it once or thrice and perhaps I missed that part. If so, then "never mind".

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

They may do so, and they may ask and force you to leave at any time, for any reason, or even for no reason at all.

Then it is personal. If this were my website that depended on member growth and the resultant advertising revenue growth then I would reign in any Moderator who abused their charge to keep things within the Guidelines by removing someone "for no reason at all" and yet we have seen this occur over the years in cycles. I suggest selected Mods should already have a high personal power level so they need not derive their power from being a Moderator. I also suggest the chat side has lost it's growth pattern purely because of the Moderators. Why, I was looking at the statistics the other day and membership participation is very weak I suspect largely because nobody wants to actually participate and place themselves in a position of being removed "just because".

Firstly, that's not my quote - it came from Casteele.
Secondly, what you may or may not do with your own website has no bearing on this situation at all.
Thirdly, if you are not prepared to backup your Mod team to keep the guidelines, then you are a piss-poor site owner. Someone who constantly flouts the rules drives people away from the site not one Mod who kicks the disturbance out.
Fourthly, like Casteele said, the Mod enforced the rules and whining about it all over the forums is pathetic and does you no favours.

quote:

Since you have no idea what his previous interactions with the moderator have been - you have "missed it" and should "never mind".

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE
Then it is personal. If this were my website that depended on member growth and the resultant advertising revenue growth then I would reign in any Moderator who abused their charge to keep things within the Guidelines by removing someone "for no reason at all" and yet we have seen this occur over the years in cycles. I suggest selected Mods should already have a high personal power level so they need not derive their power from being a Moderator. I also suggest the chat side has lost it's growth pattern purely because of the Moderators. Why, I was looking at the statistics the other day and membership participation is very weak I suspect largely because nobody wants to actually participate and place themselves in a position of being removed "just because".

I'm beginning to think you don't know much about this.

To start, if this was your website, you'd have to be looking at the bigger picture on how revenue is generated. It's not the current Moderation team/Admins that have had the effect on growth or participation levels. Your main problem as the hypothetical owner of this site is that you can't match what your competitor has become in the last several years. You were experiencing growth when you were the hot new ticket in (cyber) town. Your chat side isn't experiencing growth, because your site as a whole isn't experiencing growth, because that growth is going to other sites. The sites that other people actually recommend to the new people who show up at clubs, munches, and events. The sites that have a higher visibility when people are fumbling around with google trying to find out if there are other kinky people like them. Your "growth" has been eaten away before people ever find this site because they find other places first.

This puts you in something of a predicament because advertisers aren't stupid. Many of your advertisers are connected with the rt community in some way, so they know where the people are. Dang near all of them that used to pay money to advertise with you have split for the greener pasture. If they are doing you and the greener pastures, then you go to the next level.

As the site owner, you'd have to take all things into account about how your advertisers benefit from being here. Pretty much, those advertisers these days are about equipment. In other words, not doing a lot of good for the section of your long term members because they already know where to buy their gear. You're actually targeting members of less than a year (which is how that dang 'toys' tab was supposed to be profitable) however, that's the exact same crowd you're not pulling in.

You also LOST all of the reciprocal banner ads that were reaching people when you (hypothetical owner you) killed the Professional Services section. So, you lost "free" advertising that you're not getting back. Member advertising sucks for you because your Upcoming Events section doesn't have 1/1000 of the listings that can be found elsewhere. You're not fostering good relationships with the rt community in any of these measures, which again, means the rt community isn't pulling for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE
I think my use of a real world example of how websites are paid for and their true priority of increasing an advertising base is perfect for this discussion but I do enjoy hearing other opinions.

Except, you're leaving a big thing out. You are entirely skipping on how it works the same way if you have a member who is hindering your growth. If you have a member who is breaking the guidelines in the lobby, you have the potential of that person costing you more new members (that will see your advertising, etc) than the original member will ever be worth. Those are the folks who came and LEFT, same as people who will vote with their feet in the rt community when something is going on that is not kosher.

quote:

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I suggest one cannot use "previous interactions" when making a disciplinary decision since one had the opportunity and the responsibility to take action on the "previous interaction" if it warranted action and since none was taken then that "previous interaction" cannot support taking action in a "current interaction", only the "current interaction" may be considered at that time.

This is absolutely incorrect. The reputation of a poster (or chatter) does come into play here. The number of complaints about any particular party matter. Prior screen names under which a person have been moderated matter. How many times they have been reported for violations matter. Those areas aren't up for the general membership to see. Not to mention, you're kind of taking somebody's word that they haven't received any warnings about their behavior before. Unless you know for fact that there aren't pieces of gold mail (Admin communications) that have happened, it's impossible to say one way or the other.

quote:

This is the only way one can keep real or perceived abuse of a Moderator's responsibilities from reducing membership, reducing the advertising revenue customer base for each of us are indeed customers since we in fact pay for this site by being present and in a large enough membership size to draw advertising dollars to pay for this site. Moderators in the past have forgotten this and ignored the fact that we are customers in the real sense of the word.

Yeah, we're 'paying for' this site so much that it's losing money.

None of us are "customers". This site won't miss me a damn bit if I stop posting tomorrow and a "new" user takes my place, instead.

I know this is pretty long already, but I'm going to say a word or two about this "for any reason or no reason at all" business. Now, since you have made the reference to 'cycles over the years' that you want to impress people that you seem to know what some of that really means, and you specifically say you've read ToS, I would suggest to you or anybody else that you look at it again. Anybody who has been here over that course of years can tell you how many additions have been necessary to site policy because members have pulled some really terrible crap and tried to use the 'it isn't in ToS' excuse. You can't possibly come up with every darn thing that people will do or how they will use sites like this to perpetuate what they are doing. It has to be open ended or the site isn't really the entity in control.

Here on the forums, we have a little more insight about these things because at any given time, we're going to see what a person posts. It might not be up for long but long enough for us to see it. A lot of us can work it out whether it's a guideline violation or not and if it is, we don't go much for the claims about how it's "personal". The guy who was banned posted the content that got him kicked. This isn't nearly as difficult as some people are making it out to be.