Casteele
Posts: 655
Joined: 12/10/2011
From: Near Sacramento, California, USA
Status: offline
|
FR..
First off, it has come to my attention that one of the posters on this topic may have passed away this past Sunday, February 19th.. I'm still getting info and trying to verify it, and may post another more formal post if/as needed.. But.. Rest in Peace, ChruchofDrk. Those of us who knew you will miss you, and hope that you are now in a happier place free of the struggles we know you've lived with through the last few years. My heart goes out to your friends and family.
Back on topic.. regarding the topic of "..even for no reason at all"; That is the simple reality. I made no claim or statement that such is always a wise or good thing, only that it is what it is. You may not agree with this, but the reality is, you are a guest, and having the chat, either as individual rooms or the chat server as a whole, is not a right--it's a privilege that someone else grants you, and may revoke at any time, for any reason. Yes, a wise host will advise you of a good reason to do so, but there's no requirement for them to do so. There's also no requirement for them to justify or explain their actions.. Back to the "my house" analogy: Imagine if you lived in a world where you could not tell someone to leave your house unless you had a really good reason, and only if approved by the other "guests". Would you really want that kind of a reality, whee the rights of one guest trumped the rights of another guest or the hosts? Your privilege to be here does not extend to destroying the privileges of another to also be here and enjoy the chat in "safety". Many of those same people who scream "I have the right to be here" also scream just as loudly "I have the right to not have to put up with someone else's crap, but they have to put up with mine!" In essence, they are calling it a "power trip" and "double standard", but only when it's beneficial for them personally, but cry "foul" when it benefits someone else at your detriment. That is, to me, the real "power trip/double standard".
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, you may not know the whole story. As some posters have stated, yes, we do often get private complaints and comments about others. An just as often, those people get angry because we will not an do not act instantly in the way they want us to. They do not want to hear us say "I need to be fair, and investigate the whole, real story," they only want to hear "Yes, I'll ban them immediately because *you* think they should be!" Then we end up with someone crying "Foul! You banned them without a good reason!" We're often caught in that very real, and very impossible situation--I was just in such a situation the other night on chat, when one chatter send me a private message to "report" another who had admitted to them, privately, that they were a "sex offender", and then they got angry an frustrated with me because I did not jump to ban them "for the safety of others".. They did not want to stop and think, what if someone else said the same thing about them? Would they scream "foul" if I just banned them based solely on the say-so of another? Thats why I shake my head at the word "fair"--many people do not seem to understand what the word really means. "It's only fair if it's to my personal benefit, but unfair if it's not." But when multiple people are taking that mentality and stance, especially when they're contradicting another or another contradicting them.. there can be no such "fair", because it'll always be "unfair" to at least one person, if not more.
Then there's the whole mentality of "I pay for the site via the advertising revenue generated".. That one just boggles me. Are you saying, that if the site stopped displaying the advertisements, the advertising money from it would be in your pocket? How, exactly, does that work? Please, show me an invoice from the advertisers giving you their money for free.. I've been on the Internet since the late 80's, and on smaller independent (and sometimes networked) BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems) since the early 80's. I remember a time when someone got the bright idea of "I know, let's start a business where we let the advertisers pay us, the consumers, to look at their advertisements!" There was a lot of talk and promotion of that idea. Where are they now? I do not see them much anymore, if at all. The whole concept and model failed, and they all but completely disappeared. It just does not work like that. If you know a way to make it work.. By all means, put your money where your mouth is and prove reality wrong by becoming the next millionaire mogul genius, showing us how it can work.
Lastly, as another had also pointed out, not every single guest/customer is #1, more important than all the rest, and not always right--especially when they insist they are #1, more important than the rest. The argument that everyone counts is flawed from the start. If we cower in fear of losing one customer for not catering to their singular demands, we risk losing several others who feel we've been "unfair" to them by not providing a safe place where they are protected from having their "rights" stomped on by that one. This goes back to my earlier statements; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one," whether or not there is a specific rule, law, or ToS item addressing that specific issue. The mods often have to remove someone who is infringing on the rights and space of another, without having a specific "rule" to fall back on--that's part of the job. We wouldn't NEED mods if everything was always clearly spelled out prior, with no ambiguity, no reason to make such a "judgment call" to decide if someone violated the safe space of another. (Which, btw, IS addressed by the "rules"..)
In closing, looking back over the last five pages of this topic, I've not seen anything that has changed my mind about whether or not this situation was handled "correctly". Rather, it's reaffirmed that, IMO, it was handled correctly by the admin/mod. Could it have been handled even better? Maybe. In reality, just about anything can or could be "done better". But at the same time, I read a lot of military strategy and tactics, and you learn quickly not to second guess the man on the field who's reacting under "enemy fire". They don't have the same luxury to call for a "time out, while I think of a better response" that you do while you are sitting there reading about it after-the-fact. Especially when you still don't have the entire picture/story/all the facts in which to make those "armchair commander" decisions.
BTW.. thank you everyone for your thoughts, feedback, and opinions--I do value and consider it all, both positive and negative.
_____________________________
--
[Insert all the standard disclaimers here: IMO, YMMV, etc etc]
And moo.
|
RE: banned - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread