posted on December 10, 1999 12:26:22 AM
I said I'd be back soon, but I haven't finished checking all the postings and cross postings, and so will post a partial answer. For those to whom there is no response yet, I ask for your patience.
Also, although I know that we (AW) began this thread in the eBay outlook forum, I believe that since the thread has developed into a discussion about moderation, it really belongs in the Moderator's corner. After this partial post here, I would like to continue the discussion by starting a new thread in the Moderator's corner. I'll let you know here when that new thread is posted and what it's called.
In that vein, it is my impression that there are many threads in the eBay outlook forum that have no connection to eBay. I think it's probably not relevant now how that happened, but I think it's confusing. I suggest that new threads of a general nature be posted in the General Chat and Discussions Forum, and issues related to my moderation in the Moderator's Corner.
Before continuing, I'll be frank. Being new to the group, I want to find the balance between responding quickly without rushing to judgement and not responding right away and maybe being considered unresponsive.
I checked the hypertext e-mail link on one of my postings, and it opened an e-mail message box addressed to me ([email protected]). If it isn't working for anyone, please let me know so I can get the word to the right people.
Re the poltergeist posting
I would have been glad if no one other than I had thought there was something wrong with that posting, however, at least one other user saw what I saw. I saw something in it that I thought was an indirect slight about another user. Maybe I was reading more into it than there was, maybe not. It may be another instance of different people having different boundaries of what's offensive, but my intent was not to nitpick, but to maintain the spirit of the Community Guidelines. But, I hear what you're saying.
To Hellcat:
I'm not sure I understand if any part of the following that you posted is addressed to me. Could you please clarify: "yep, that was a bit silly, when there was so much else to work with...saying to Aurorah, What Waca said was pretty offensive, but yeah, so what? There were just about 100 "smilies" in that message, so no big deal, right?"
Re your comment: "Gila, please see my post in the Moderator's Corner. You've done a fine job on your first day...I was sure impressed."
Thanks for your compliment. I appreciate it. I will check out your post in the Moderator's Corner and respond there.
To Chyna:
I don't know whether you wanted or expected a response, and as I don't want you to think I am ignoring your post, I want to say that, at least now, I won't respond substantively. There are times that one should not respond to feedback, but rather just listen to it. I appreciate your honesty and that you focused on my actions.
posted on December 10, 1999 12:34:03 AM
Beth is talking about the same post that you asked me about, that I have already explained why I felt that post was a direct slight against 2 users, an issue you have yet to take a stand on.
posted on December 9, 1999 07:25:32 PM edit
Gila You asked me a question posted on December 8, 1999 10:53:10 PM
I answered that question posted on December 8, 1999 11:31:41 PM edit
posted on December 10, 1999 12:52:31 AM
So far what I understand from what you're saying is that in the post you are referring to, the poster agreed with comments waca made about two other posters, that the comments waca made were offensive, and therefore that makes the "agreeing" post offensive as well. I found a thread - a very long thread - initiated by waca, and I'm starting to read it, assuming the comments are in it.
In other words, I need to go to the source and understand what was being said there before coming to a conclusion about what agreeing with it means.
Gila
PS It's almost 1am, and I'm pretty bleary. I get on this and the other things I haven't addressed tomorrow (actually later today).
posted on December 10, 1999 12:59:04 AMGILA LET ME SAVE YOU SOME TIME. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING FAIR, I WAS WAITING TO SEE HOW IT WOULD BE HANDLED. FIRST OFF,
No GILA you weren't the only one who saw somthing wrong with this post:
thorton
email
posted on December 8, 1999 09:42:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every day you should learn a new word.
Today's word is poltergeist.
poltergeist (noun) : a ghost that announces its presence with rapping and the creation of disorder
Most effective when said in a clear and concise voice while smiling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was definetly aimed at me seeing I am casperzlady (you know the friendly ghostand I love smileys) and I did get upset but chose to lurk and see if it would in fact get moderated. BUT NOW ZAZZIE IS POSTING THE SAME SORT OF BS. SEE:
Subj: RE:
Date: 12/10/99 12:44:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: [email protected] (AuctionWatch.com Message Center)
I\'ve got enough real friends --so the pit won\'t mind a poltergiest or two
\N
Click the following link if you no longer want Email Notification for this thread:
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/unmail.html?f=2&t=106690&i=86318&r=b49c9d
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`thank you Zazzie for editing when you realized what it meant
Also ROSS if your questions involve my remarks to Aurorah and Hellcat, why not just come out and ask [B]ME?[B] I am the poster who posted them. and as Hellcat herself has pointed out so graciously no one should presume to know what is in a posters head when posting.LOOK:
hellcat
email
posted on December 9, 1999 07:05:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunnicula...I guess I'm just dense. At whom was the poltergeist definition aimed (I just HATE it when everybody knows something and I'm in the dark)?
I'm serious...I don't know. I won't presume to know what is in thorton's mind, and genuinely hope that no one else presumes to "know" mine.
So why presume to know what I meant or was talking about? You really want to know? I asked you what post of wacas YOU were thinking I was talking about and you never answered ,ME!. Had you reeeeaaallly wanted to know and not just be trying your damdest to get me "suspended" you would have asked me.
The posts of WACAs I was refering to (see below). I was and am still very upset with all the slinging of crap done by those two inpaticular, at me and I felt they were goading me into being revoked... the post of wacas that I was reffering is one made to spaz when being poked at himself:
spazmodeus
posted on December 8, 1999 07:55:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I call for waca's resignation.
waca
posted on December 8, 1999 08:17:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpazmodeusNo. Won't happen.
Now if you had answered MY QUESTION you would have gotten that answer along time ago and saved the moderator some time. But, I am glad she is digging and maybe will see the actual picking and teasing that goes on here to me and some others and say hey wait just a cotton pickin minute here. You are complaining?
and by the way GILA I really think your moderating my post of what I felt about how the posters were behaving here and posting things about me even though veiled very well, was just to suit Ross and kinda make it not look like you were picking on him. I see nothing wrong with comparing posts to things in real life. BUT, your the moderator and I am a peon.
I still love smileys and they are meant to spread sunshine not sarcasm! So smile on!
---
The friendly Ghostess
edited because I am tired and my fingers are slower than my brain right now !
ALSO TO SAY ZAZZIE EDITED THAT POST LISTED.
[ edited by cAsPeRzLaDy on Dec 10, 1999 02:13 AM ]
posted on December 10, 1999 01:14:27 AM"What WACA said" was an obvious reference to WACA's venomous, hate-filled diatribe that ignited the explosion resulting in Bobmill's resignation, and has been referred to before in the same manner in a transparent attempt to lob a vicious insult. Unfortunately, Gila, WACA revamped said post after everything hit the fan, and you may need to refer to his original post to get the real meaning of it. It was some of the most disturbing filth I've seen posted anywhere in this forum, and it's lack of moderation has led me to question the value of continued posting here. What everyone is referring to here was a feeble attempt to serve the same insult once again. I don't advocate a heavy hand in moderating at all, and I tend to like the relatively "free" nature of the environment at AW, but any reference to the now-infamous WACA post in an attempt to insult anyone should be closely examined for moderation--any reference in such a manner is inexcusable, IMNSHO.
~Mark
edited for clarification (it's late here, OK?)
[ edited by rhyno on Dec 10, 1999 01:16 AM ]
posted on December 10, 1999 01:19:25 AM
Ryno your opinion doesn't count...... You and I have a very ugly past and you just plain out don't like me because I am THE NEICE. You will not dictate to me or anyone else what I AM REFERRING TO. Just as I was never allowed to call you a liar with all your snideness to me in the past.
I will thank you for Staying out of it till Gila reads and makes a decision. It isn't a court of law and you are not a credible witness.
posted on December 10, 1999 01:29:53 AM
quote: Ryno your opinion doesn't count...... You and I have a very ugly past and you just plain out don't like me because I am THE NEICE. You will not dictate to me or anyone else what I AM REFERRING TO.
You are right, it is not a court of law, and I am perfectly allowed to discuss Waca's post, and my opinion of how you directed your comments on it to attack other posters here. Especially since Gila is new here and may not be aware of similar comments made by you in the past in an attempt to get around the "direct insult" interpretation of the TOS. As far as that ugly past, I was one of the people who welcomed you here on AW when you began to post regularly. If you'd like, I'm sure we can dig up those early threads.
I call it like I see it, Casperz. And I just found out my favorite AW feauture is working again. Goodnight, now!
posted on December 10, 1999 01:40:15 AMRHY, no your opinion holds no credibility here with me. You can dig all you like and I encourage you to. I will defend every post you bring here.
You never welcomed me untill some of the popular posters did so. And only because Bob asked them to. Boy that makes one feel special huh?
I encourage you to make very good use of that ignore feature because I won't go away for your posting confort.
---
The friendly Ghostess
edited to add:
Many times I have tried to be nice and overlook the sarcasms and the snide remarks, I even had a very wonderful Mentor Vicki (hi vicki), and everytime she would give me words of encouragement not to let you posters get the best of me I would try to listen to her and when it was apparent her wisdom was working, the goading only got worse and worse till all hell broke loose on thanksgiving eve and day. some posters are never happy to just leave me be and let me post merrily on my own. Well I aint taking it no more. If Gila wants to take me out then so be it but it will be for YOUR INTERPRETATIONS not MY INTENTIONS.
[ edited by cAsPeRzLaDy on Dec 10, 1999 01:46 AM ]
I'm not sure how much you will have been able to catch up on here by the time you read this, but while I think you comment about limiting discussion in the forum to ebay related topics has merit, I think it will be quite hard to implement.
I have wavered between thinking forum strictly limited to auction advice would be good or would be bad. I've come to the conclusion that when a thread is just limited to an auction type question and there are quick and helpful responses the topic soon loses interest and will soon scroll to page two where it is seen by few and then others might miss it and not be able to learn from it then.
posted on December 10, 1999 04:25:20 AMGila, you asked:
"To Hellcat: I'm not sure I understand if any part of the following that you posted is addressed to me. Could you please clarify: "yep, that was a bit silly, when there was so much else to work with...saying to Aurorah, What Waca said was pretty offensive, but yeah, so what? There were just about 100 "smilies" in that message, so no big deal, right?"
That comment was clearly directed to Vikki (Dragonlady). Her name precedes the comment, quite obviously. With the limits placed on UBB codes here, bolding it is just the best I can do, I'm afraid.
You also said:
Re your comment: "Gila, please see my post in the Moderator's Corner. You've done a fine job on your first day...I was sure impressed." Thanks for your compliment. I appreciate it. I will check out your post in the Moderator's Corner and respond there."
You are most welcome for the compliment. I'm sorry that you were unable to get around to the Moderator's Corner, but you may have already spoken loudly with unresponsiveness. What's that old song, You say it best when you say nothing at all?
Have a fine day...Beth
Edited for UBB
[ edited by hellcat on Dec 10, 1999 04:27 AM ]
posted on December 10, 1999 08:41:49 AM
One thing is for sure, IF only ebay posts and threads are to be utilized here, then anyone not buying or selling on ebay will have (or find) little relevance here.
Of course, it may then spill over to the General Chat area.
With the way AW is now and the way it is headed, I wonder which is going to be worse.
I have a feeling much change is in store, and not all for the better.
I see some posters going out of their way on Gila's first day to exert influence over her.
In order for Gila to understand the dynamics of the atmosphere here, she would have to read back a long way, and not just the Brenda saga either.
We have had duplicitous posters here since the beginning of the year at least, I was a lurker then and remember when and where the animosity between certain folks here began.
As long as there are lax rules that allow multiple ids that allow sh** to be stirred you will have this effect.
I do not envy Gilas' position right now. It is a lot of homework and I wish she had an UNBIASED score card.
It's a shame that the previous moderator had to put her in this position becuase of his own duplicity.
I wish I were more optimistic about the future of AW and my place here.
posted on December 10, 1999 09:06:40 AMNobs: Not meaning to make light of anything you said, but I believe that a moderator doesn't necessarily have to know the history betwen all the posters here in order for her to do her job. If somebody makes a personal attack on another poster, whether outright or veiled behind subtle innuendos, the moderator should be able to say "that comment has nothing to do with the issues being discussed and is clearly meant as an insult" [or words to that effect], without worrying about who started what, who was mean to whom first, etc.
Now, granted, some people will try to make their insults so veiled and obscure that a moderator would have to know the history between the posters to even realize that there was an insult. But I have faith in the intelligence of our new moderator to see through attempts like that.
We all know about the "Brenda" saga. The fact that the moderator may not be up on all the details is, I believe, irrelevant. As long as a certain relative of "Brenda" wants to post here, she should be moderated according to what she posts, not according to what she and her family members have been accused of doing, or have done, in the past. In a similar vein, the fact that she and her family members have been accused of doing, or have done, things in the past should not, in my opinion, provide anyone with a license to constantly make belittling or demeaning remarks to or about her, even veiled ones. I especially dislike the constant barbs and veiled insults launched against certain people, followed by the inevitable protests of innocence and indignation when the person attacked responds.
Again, just my opinion. In a previous thread I commented that "assuming we have a new moderator who is actually willing to enforce the TOS as it now stands." I still don't know yet whether she is willing to enforce it, or to what degree -- only time will tell. But I have complete faith that she will be able to do so if the rest of us will give her a chance to do so.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[spelling....]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Dec 10, 1999 09:08 AM ]
posted on December 10, 1999 09:20:56 AMBarry
When making that statement I was thinking of Gilas' post re: " what waca said" and other ongoing animosities between posters. I really do think it is helpful to know the past dynamics or relationships or moderations may be given for innocent postings and may not be given for veiled insults ar not so innocent postings. That was all that was meant by the sentence.
I agreed to a truce of peace of sorts between us and I have tried to abide by it. Even when I disagree with your posts (and I do often disagree with them) I have kept that opinion to myself. I would really appreciate the same from you because it will make it so much easier to get along. When I agree with what you say or find what you say to be a contribution, I will try to let you know, otherwise, Peace (holding up my fingers in the peace sign).
I didn't even want to post THIS!
posted on December 10, 1999 09:22:29 AM...she should be moderated according to what she posts, not according to what she and her family members have been accused of doing, or have done, in the past. In a similar vein, the fact that she and her family members have been accused of doing, or have done, things in the past should not, in my opinion, provide anyone with a license to constantly make belittling or demeaning remarks to or about her, even veiled ones.
"What Waca said" and "x10" have nothing to do with anyone's family or past history on these boards, except for the Waca comment of a few days ago. "What Waca said" is a vile statement, intended only to insult and incite. It appears obvious enough to most here. And I am glad to see that you agree that she should be moderated for what she has posted, Barry.
posted on December 10, 1999 09:22:50 AMBarry: Constant reminders of the "family" will never have a positive influence if people keep bringing it up! I have not seen any Moderations lately for abuse to the "family" so drop it!
The barbs seem to go both ways and in the example of one of the posts "What waca said " it is indeed an insult and certainly no one will dispute that. You can sugar coat a barb all you want and it still will catch in your throat when you swallow. In that case it appears to be a very shallow comment but without knowledge of waca's posting on that now infamous thread, a moderator would see the comment as benign. The poster has given a very pathetic alternate posting of what "waca said"....Please, give us some credit. Barry, the waca comment has nothing to do with the "family". It was posted by a "family" member. She does good most of the time, but she does her fair share of barbing too. Take the blinders off. No one should get a free ride.
I am disagreeing with you Barry. Most of the barbs have most always gone both ways by all the same people that chose to post that way.
The majority of posters don't insult and don't toss out barbs. We give far too much attention to the ones that toss insults as a routine.
Oh and Gila, welcome to AW! You are my annagram!
Gail
Spelling oopsy......and also to mention that I don't see your email hyperlink either.
[ edited by gailco on Dec 10, 1999 09:51 AM ]
posted on December 10, 1999 09:25:25 AMNow, granted, some people will try to make their insults so veiled and obscure that a moderator would have to know the history between the posters to even realize that there was an insult. But I have faith in the intelligence of our new moderator to see through attempts like that.
posted on December 10, 1999 09:41:52 AM
G'day Gila,
You have asked above to let you know if your Email hyperlink isn't coming up for any users. It is not coming up for me whilst many others on this page are.
I am only mentioning this because I think it is a tool that needs to appear on your postings (as moderator).
Oh, and welcome, I hope that all settles down comfortably for you.
posted on December 10, 1999 10:09:48 AMNobs: I'm sorry you took my post as some sort of "breaking of the peace" between us. I meant it as a respectful response to your comments, and that's what I believe that it was. With regard to the "what Waca said" remark, I will say that I agree with you that this is one case where knowing the past history of this board would help the moderator determine whether a remark is a personal attack or not. Fortunately, as has been shown, there is no lack of people here willing to educate the moderator on that past history. In general, though, I still believe that the moderator will be able to spot the vast majority of personal attacks, no matter how they are veiled or hidden behind such references. She may not understand why the attack was made, but she should be able to at least recognize it for what it is. And that's all I'm trying to say. Just because I disagree with you on a topic doesn't mean I think any less of you or want to pick a fight with you, Nobs. Please believe that.
Rhyno: Actually, I don't believe the words "What Waca said" to be a particularly vile statement, in and of itself. Especially since the comment doesn't specify what parts of Waca's infamous post she agreed with. True, Waca said some pretty vile and offensive things in his post, and I agree that "dittoing" those words, while not as bad as uttering them oneself, could still be considered a personal attack on the person who was the focus of the thread in question. However, in between all the "vileness", Waca also stated his opinion as to how that person had acted in the past. I think it is possible to agree with Waca that a person has done certain things without agreeing with the way he said it, nor with his decision to start an entire thread devoted to it. Having said all that, I do happen to agree that the "What Waca said" comment was probably meant as a personal attack, and that this is indeed a case where knowing the history would have helped the moderator make a better call. Again, though, there seems to be no shortage of people willing to help her out in this regard.
Oh -- and I'm glad to see that you agree with me on my hopes for the new moderator!
Gailco: I'm sorry if you felt I was stirring things up or anything like that. Nobs made reference to "the Brenda saga" in her post to which I was responding, and so I used it in my response as well as an example. I agree, though, that some things are better off dropped for good.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[darn UBB...]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Dec 10, 1999 10:11 AM ]
posted on December 10, 1999 10:18:26 AM
So these two cops are driving down the road when they see a suspicious looking box on the sidewalk. Upon checking it they find three live hand grenades and decide for the safety of the public to take them back to the station.
The Junior officer of the pair anxious to please immediately grabs the box and puts it in the back seat of the cruiser.
The senior officer looks incredulously at his younger partner and asks "hey, what if one of them goes off?".
"no problem" replies the rookie "we'll say we only found two"
--------------------- --------- -------------------------
I've been waiting for a chance to tell that one, and this thread just seemed like a perfect time and place.
posted on December 10, 1999 10:34:34 AMBarry said:
I think it is possible to agree with Waca that a person has done certain things without agreeing with the way he said it, nor with his decision to start an entire thread devoted to it.
Let me tell you why I have a problem with statements such as Waca's and references to it such this one. Blanket attacks are easy. Aim and fire assorted non committal accusations without actually proving them.
There was another poster a few days before Waca that tried the same thing. I called em on it and said "show me these certain things". Provide links to the threads where I have behaved so badly. And you know what? They never responded.
Same with Waca. Nothing substantial, all accusations, never proven. Pffttttttt.
So seeing as how you seem to agree with Waca's position Barry, how about you step up and make the case against me. A vague and insufficient complaint based upon belief alone has been filed against me. Please assert the COA(s) and fill in the blanks.
posted on December 10, 1999 10:39:38 AM
Good Morning Everyone,
I have made, and will continue to make, my moderation calls based on the content of a message, and the content only - without regard to who the poster is. I see that as my commitment to the TOS and the Community Guidelines.
If I wasn't clear before, my point about the "what waca said" post was: 1) someone claimed that it was agreeing with a previous derogatory, personal post, and therefore should be moderated. 2) I can't know if that's accurate until I know what waca actually said. 3) Therefore, I have to go back and look at stuff that happened before my time. Again, I'm focusing on content only.
It seems that some of this discussion is opening past wounds and is beginning to get personal. Can we take a step back?
More to come. I'm trying to post these in manageable pieces.
posted on December 10, 1999 10:45:47 AM
I wish to add one more comment so that current issue about the reference to Waca's post is clear. Other people have brought this issue to light- not I. I made a concious decision to ignore it just as I ignored Waca. Ta!
posted on December 10, 1999 11:11:21 AMAurorah: Actually, I believe I pointed out at the time that I tried to go back and quote you on a few things, only to find that every one of your posts on the subject had been edited out completely. I think I called it a "draw" at the time, since I couldn't "prove" you had said anything.
For the record, though, I absolutely do not think Waca was right in posting his attack thread against you, Aurorah, regardless of what I may think about you personally, or what you may or may not have done. The same way I didn't think it was right for people to attack casperzlady, jkorchids, mssmiler, shagadelic, and a host of other people, regardless of what you, I or anyone else may think about them personally, or what they may or may not have done.
I think all most of want to do around here is post in peace, Aurorah. I'm perfectly happy to let "bygones be bygones" and not talk about any of this ever again. In return, I would only ask that you also refrain from bringing up "past histories" if you ever decide to respond to one of my posts.
Peace?
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
and I love smileys) and I did get upset but chose to lurk and see if it would in fact get moderated. BUT NOW ZAZZIE IS POSTING THE SAME SORT OF BS. SEE:
!