Fantasy Book Club Series discussion
Folder for All Other Stuff
>
Moderator and "Rules" Feedback
date
newest »
newest »
Yeah Charles.. A day late a buck short. Everyone else already said this stuff, but why not throw it out there once more for emphasis.#1 - We are calm, or were until you showed up late to the party and decided to act like we hadn't already moved on.
#2 - Off topic? Are you serious? How about you scroll to the top of the page, and check out what the name of this thread is.
#3 - "Now, as to censorship from mods. Well.... isn't that what mods are FOR?" Wow. Just wow... Way to set the progress we all made in her back to square one.
Honestly, if we talk about our favorite books and series a lot of the rest of this crap gets lost in the shuffle (as it should). Lets all focus on getting new series of books nominated and voted upon so that we can start a meaningful discussion.
Christopher wrote: "Honestly, if we talk about our favorite books and series a lot of the rest of this crap gets lost in the shuffle (as it should)."LOL! Wow. This is an absolutely fascinating statement. So you have no problem with your moderators censoring people willy-nilly, calling people nasty names, making up their rules as they go along (and breaking them too, I might add) and just generally abusing their "authority"? No problem with this at all? Just look away. It never happened. Let's just talk about something else.
Well I DO have a problem with all of that. I joined to say so because I believe that people should be treated fairly. I'm not the type to just ignore unfairness when I see it - whether it directly affects me or not.
If I see a man kicking a dog in the street, I will stop it. It saddens me that some would look away.
I really think this group deserves the mods they got. Good luck to you all.
Now, I call this last statement insulting and flaming. Becky has apparently left the group and I am debating whether to delete it or not. Christopher has a right to his opinion without being flamed.I have investigated several other groups today and find that many of them have the same or similar rules as this group. This is a book discussion group. It's not a democracy. We don't kick dogs in the street. We simply try to create a peaceful atmosphere where we can discuss books.
Becky, I have only been a member here for several days so I honestly don't know all of the ins and outs of what has transpired. And as I said last night, I could really care less. I have been involved in a couple of other groups here on GR where this happened and it got ugly real fast and everybody got mean-spirited and antagonistic toward one another. My comments last night and tonight are solely and wholly intended to ask that folks stand down and just move forward with the overall intent of the group kept at the forefront. If there are members or mods who are 'out in left field' it will become abundantly apparent quickly and the rest of the group will move past that person.The reason I have piped up here is because I am seeing "a man kicking a dog in the street" and I am bloody well tired of it. It has all been said, but apparently not everyone has had the opportunity to say it. We all need to put this behind us and just put our best foot forward, and get back to the REAL reason why we are here--good books. Each one of us needs to set an example and not worry about the other person so much.
I guess what I am really trying to say is that I am trying to find a way--any bloody way possible--to heal this breach, and get us all back to doing what we do best--discussing some great books and series. And I'm quickly running out of gas trying to defend myself being the peacemaker. Cheers! Chris
Really? Well, every time I've posted about anything of late I've gotten the look down the nose attitude. I'm either ignored straight up or basically told to STFU.Even when I've tried to talk about books I've been corrected. I'm told I'm off topic when I'm discussing possible series books to use in a nomination thread and I'm told to shut up when I'm in a thread which is about feedback on the rules.
Damn straight it isn't a democracy. That's quite evident. It's a totalitarian group. Well, I don't wish to be sent to the Gulag if I don't finish a group read fast enough.
Oh, and I forget that my opinion doesn't matter because I fell behind in the previous series read. That must mean I'm an insurgent. I only read the first three books so as to infiltrate the system.
Yes, I'm being a smartass. I'm sick of this double standard garbage.
My questions on page one weren't answered. Which to me is the answer. That's ok. The questions were the important thing.
Oh yeah. The thing about kicking dogs? That was a metaphor.
Chris wrote: "Charles wrote: "WE"RE WAY OFF TOPIC FOLKS!..."We moved this discussion in here because it was off topic. Then it became on topic. Is it off topic again? Ahem, this is the topic.
But thank you.
..."
One of the main reasons that I like books so much is that I love book people so much. When I am courteous and reasonable with honestly good intentions, I almost always get that back from book people.
Yes, this actually IS the thread for rules feedback -- Sorry, it's just that I serve the general cause of peace and wanted a little of that.
Thank You
This is to both of you, Christopher and Charles.You're both taking the peacemaker approach. If that's true, why stir the hornets?
AFTER THEY'VE CALMED DOWN?
And started talking rationally?
That's what had happened, anyway.
Chris wrote: "This is to both of you, Christopher and Charles.You're both taking the peacemaker approach. If that's true, why stir the hornets?
AFTER THEY'VE CALMED DOWN?
And started talking rationally?
Tha..."
Consider me clammed up, Chris, and my humblest apologies to all. The last thing I wanted to do was re-start 'this' again. I feel utterly ridiculous.
Sandra aka Sleo in #43 wrote: Do you also object to the spamming ban? Seems similar to me. "I didn't address this question because I found it too indeterminate. I've been dealing professionally with spam for over a decade & defining it is a major problem. Try satisfying hundreds of users with automated rules on a computer. Very tough since everyone's definition seems to vary. As an example, I don't find an automated signature here on GR with a blurb promoting a book to be a problem while I know many do. I kind of like it, actually.
Sandra aka Sleo in #43 wrote: "I think the clarifying factor is whether or not you will receive some kind of financial benefit from the activities. Authors and their families quite naturally want to make money from book sales. I have nothing against this. This isn't the appropriate place to seek that.
Authors have such a tough time getting recognition for their work that I'm willing to make more allowances than you are, obviously. With roughly a half million books being published every year, obscurity is probably the biggest problem an author faces. I think GR is exactly the place for authors to seek recognition. Since the rules here didn't properly address the issue, I felt the moderators' response was inappropriate at the time, but that's in the past.
No rules are perfect & I hope some thought has been given to the future. All you can do is try to keep the conversation contained & headed in the right direction. I hope future moderation will be kept more within the limits of decency that I've come to expect from a GR forum.
Have you given any thought to what would happen if someone nominated 'Twilight' or 'Harry Potter' & then notified all their groups of the impending vote? This is allowable under the current rules, but I doubt you'd find it to your liking.
I'm glad there is a thread to attempt to get things sorted out... it DOES show that people care about this group.As a newbie, I would have to emphasize that LACK OF COMUNICATION is key in many misunderstandings, and I would say it was central here.
I had no idea what was going on when all this happened. What happened to the poll? What's all the to-do about? What the hell happened?
I think I'm agreeing with Micheal when I say that a simple broadcast posting to the group would have prevented oh so much debate, confusion, and pissyness. But I'm just trying to give some constructive criticism here in the hopes of preventing a next time.
I would actually like to take a brief moment to welcome our new moderators, and give them credit for even taking on such a thankless and demanding job.
=)
As an aside, I think group votes should be for group members. I think notifying close friends directly of an upcoming read is fine, but if you have to "mass" or "batch" notify, then you probably shouldn't.
Interested readers will find their way to the groups that are reading what they want. You want quality in your discussions, not quantity.
Kara wrote: "I'm glad there is a thread to attempt to get things sorted out... it DOES show that people care about this group.As a newbie, I would have to emphasize that LACK OF COMUNICATION is key in many mi..."
Well stated, Kara!
Actually, I am in the process of rethinking and revising the rules after so many objections to the whole thing. We have made many mistakes. Please try to bear with us while we work it out. And thank you for your input.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Actually, I am in the process of rethinking and revising the rules after so many objections to the whole thing. We have made many mistakes. Please try to bear with us while we work it out. And t..."Thank you for considering our input. I know this isn't a democracy, but at the same time it shouldn't be a dictatorship either. It's nice to know someone is taking our suggestions/gripes seriously.
Kudos. Kara for good ideas and a positive attitude. Thanks, too, for the hat-tip to the mods. I, personally apologize for any ruffled feathers. I DO actually take the peacemakers role, or try to anyway. But I have NO desire to o
ffend, or silence anyone.
I'll look for you all on the poll.
Nicely said, Kara. It's refreshing to hear from one of the group members.
It's not a democracy because like it or not, the rules can be whatever the mods want them to be. There's no vote on the rules.. GR is whatever people make of it. That doesn't mean I don't think mod's should take member opinions into account regarding the rules. But there's no rule on GR saying they have to - hence it not being a democracy. And further more, like you said, this isn't politics. Just further reason why it wouldn't be a democracy, and shouldn't be a dictatorship. It's a book discussion group.
Dawn wrote: "It's not a democracy because like it or not, the rules can be whatever the mods want them to be. There's no vote on the rules.. GR is whatever people make of it. That doesn't mean I don't think mod..."Well said. Thanks.
For the edification of those who have been so horrified at our deletion of posts, etc., I am copying the guidelines for moderating set up by Goodreads:* Moderators have the power to delete any discussion post in the group, so keep the group clean. We suggest leaving all member comments except for the following: spam, porn, extremely offensive material (eg Pro-Nazi, etc), or direct personal attacks on other members. Arguing is often part of discussing, but personal attacks are not necessary. When you do delete a comment that members may miss, note you have done so and why, so members know what happened. Note that members can also edit or delete their own comments.
* Moderators have the power to remove any member from the group. Removing a member will block them from re-joining. You can edit the group's block list from the blocked users management page.
* Moderators can add other moderators. We suggest you do this if you aren't particularly active, or want to leave the group.
* Moderators can give themselves, or any other moderator, a fun title! Look for the "add title" link on the members page.
Sandra - I am not saying this to start crap back up, just to clarify. I think we are past the anger and I don't want to stir it back up.I am fine with those guidelines, but the deletions made were above and beyond those. We've had Becky's comment, which led to this thread, deleted when it contained none of the examples above. Michael's as well. In the rules it was also stated that off topic comments could be deleted.
These are the things I think people had concerns about... If you're going to go by the GR guidelines from now on, I'm fine with that. But just realize that the deletions we were all "horrified" at contained none of the examples in the guidelines.
Dawn wrote: "Sandra - I am not saying this to start crap back up, just to clarify. I think we are past the anger and I don't want to stir it back up.I am fine with those guidelines, but the deletions made wer..."
I don't want to open the debate either. I posted the guidelines for as I said, edification. We might disagree as to personal attacks, and that is fine. But some people were upset at the idea of deleting posts at all. This is why I posted the guidelines, and Jon and Charles and I will attempt to follow them.
I have concerns about you being a moderator in any group if your view on moderation is this simplistic. Mod..."
Well said Nicola.