Fantasy Book Club Series discussion
Folder for All Other Stuff
>
Moderator and "Rules" Feedback
Here is my original post, which Becky is referring to in hers:-----------------
In case anyone's confused, here's the group rules as posted on the group home page:
"Spamming of the Forum with advertising in any form (which includes signature spam, book cover spam, etc) is prohibited. Personal attacks on authors, moderators or members may result in the deletion of your posts and your removal from the group."
--------------------------------------------------
Now I have a question. Do these rules apply to the Mods as well? Or are they above the law? I saw the question that Michael asked, and it seemed legitimate to me. It seemed like one that is probably on a lot of members' minds. After all, the big shakeup happened the other night and there was not explanation, nor reassurance to the group that all would proceed as planned. Many saw their favorite group (or one of them) in a state of uproar and had questions.
I'm all about moving forward and putting the garbage behind. This group and any other needs positive leadership and a healthy focus to move forward. I wish all the members of this forum the best of luck and many happy long and pleasant nights of reading excellent fantasy novels.
That said, lashing out and calling a group member a "TROLL" is not healthy behavior. It does not promote a positive environment that a group in disarray needs to move forward. In short, it is trollish behavior in and of itself.
And then deleting the question is just as corrupt and offensive. It was a well-stated question that was not spam nor was it inflammatory. It was not from a random "troll" that wanted to hurt feelings or cause mayhem, but a fantasy reader that just wanted to know, in short, wtf? Or to put it in a less trollish manner, they simply wanted to know what was going on.
The Mods do not seem to favor questions, but blind obedience. But here's a suggestion. If you want obedience, help people understand what it is you expect of them in the first place.
Group members have invested a lot of their time in these groups, for the good of the group and their own reading enrichment. They should not be treated as flame-bandits swooping through a group to cause havoc. They should be treated with respect and courtesy. They should not be called names by the group Mods and they should not have their posts censored out of hand.
------------------
The only change I've made to it was taking out the final paragraph, where I predicted the post's deletion. That didn't happen initially so it seemed obsolete.
It was eventually deleted, but we were warned that the thread it was on would be cleaned up this morning in order to get the topic back on track. That seemed fair enough.
Sandra and Jon did answer my questions in that original thread, though I'll have to leave it to them to re-post them here, if they feel that's necessary.
At least you received a response, Chris, lame as it was to claim that the word "ridiculous" was cause to delete an apparently valid post questioning what was going on. "Ridiculous" indeed. Perhaps since I was not a member of the group prior to this, I am not worthy of any response at all, despite having been friendly with both Sandra and Jon in other groups in the past.
Perhaps Sandra and Jon simply consider me a "flame-bandit swooping through to cause havoc". Someone who joined a group simply to call into question the mods' questionable behavior and stand up for their group members to be treated fairly? This cannot be allowed!
Perhaps it was my clearly disapproving tone that the mods object to and choose to delete out of hand or ignore completely?
I suggest the rules be changed again:
"All user posts in this group will be subjected to moderator review. Any posts not meeting our approval will be deleted and may result in the user being removed and banned from the group."
At least then members would know that they can expect their posts/membership to be deleted at moderator discretion, as that seems to be what the mods believe is meant by "Personal attacks on authors, moderators or members may result in the deletion of your posts and your removal from the group", which has a very different meaning.
Thank you both for your considered opinions. I will try to explain what happened.JJ had approached me before he made me the Spam Mod in the FBC group about taking over both groups as head mod at some point because he was returning to University and would be too busy. I agreed to do this. If you recall last week there was a thread in the FBC group that escalated quite rapidly into insults and sarcasm. I think both of you posted in that thread. I was concerned about it, but had contacted JJ before about insults in a thread and he said he preferred to let it go. Then he noticed the thread and decided to say something. This appeared to make it worse and so he shut down the thread. He did not consult me about this.
Then the poll was put up. Another group member contacted me about concerns about the behavior of an author's wife. I advised the member to contact Goodreads. This was done and Goodreads sent a message to the author's wife about her habits.
As I investigated, it looked like that particular series was winning because of people joining the group to vote for it as a result of her mass email - over 600! This was upsetting to me. The same thing had happened in the FBC group and it had upset JJ and resulted in him asking me to be spam mod. It also succeeded in getting her husband's book to be a group discussion.
Because of a long history of contacting this person - the wife of an author who has had a career in marketing and promotion - about her spamming with no change in her behavior, I decided while hot under the collar (always a bad time) to post what I did about my opinion of her behavior - resulting in a lot of angry people.
JJ then contacted me and said he was leaving Goodreads and would I become head mod with Jon to help me. Jon and I agreed. JJ proceeded to take down the poll and left Goodreads altogether.
I was surprised to see the poll taken down. Jon and I conferred and agreed to start a new poll for the reasons stated. We then decided on the rules. The only change we made was the one about special promotions of any books or series to be discussed, as it seems to me to be only fair that all nominations be on the same footing. I don't like 'rigged' elections.
The business about deleting posts has ALWAYS been in the rules. The only difference is that it is now being enforced.
Regarding Michael's post: I wish now that I had made a copy of it, or even left it there, but I didn't. His post had a very angry tone and ended by quoting the rule about disqualifying books that were promoted behind the scenes in any way and saying he thought it was absolutely ridiculous.
Anyone who joins a group should read the rules. If they don't like the rules, don't join. It hardly seems appropriate to berate the mods about them. We made no prohibition against the series in question being renominated. In fact it has been.
Jon and I debated about whether to address the whole controversy or not, and decided, perhaps wrongly, to let it die a hopefully peaceful death. At any rate, I have tried to answer your questions. Anyone who wants to rant can do so in this thread. I think it's reasonable to object to derailing the topic of a thread with side issues.
Becky wrote: "At least you received a response, Chris, lame as it was to claim that the word "ridiculous" was cause to delete an apparently valid post questioning what was going on. "Ridiculous" indeed. Perhap..."
As you can see, Becky, your questions have been answered.
Thank you for the detailed explanation of things, Sandra.Just a couple of comments to that.
First, whether or not deleting posts falls under your authority or discretion isn't the issue. It does. What is in question is the decision to do that. If Michael had an angry tone, it should have been addressed rather than censored. He's a group member, not a "troll". Do you want to have the image of being a moderator that says, "You don't agree? Tough. I'm a Mod. Shut the fuck up?" No, I seriously doubt that. You do have the authority to throw his post out of the airlock. That doesn't make it right.
I have never seen a case where censorship results in anything but bad feelings. Nobody likes to have their voice cut off. Addressing the issues seems to me a much better approach. You might not get him to agree, but at least you will have shown him the respect he deserves as a group member.
The rules are fine. It's the behavior we've questioned.
I don't have an issue with moving our posts to this thread rather than cluttering up a nomination thread.
As far as JJ making the heated discussion worse, yes he did. If he had posted a general reminder to be civil, that would have been fine. By then, the argument had actually fizzled out. But as per JJ's norm, he came in too late to the party and tried to throw his weight around. He singled out one person. That was wrong. It should have been the group in general. But as he's resigned and you had nothing to do with that, it's a moot point. I just wanted to illustrated my problem with that process. Perhaps we can all learn from mistakes made in the past.
Thank you for that explanation Sandra... however it doesn't really address the issues I raised. You say "Anyone who joins a group should read the rules. If they don't like the rules, don't join. It hardly seems appropriate to berate the mods about them."
I agree with you there. But I disagree with the way that either the rules are worded or how they are being interpreted in regards to enforcement. I read the group rules, and even quoted them several times. I broke none of them, yet my posts were deleted without explanation. Perhaps this was for their being "off topic" but that seems to come much later. Chris's off-topic post was left, as was the original "TROLL"calling post, and they were only deleted today.
As mods, you can set any rules you like... All posts must be in italics. No bold or capslock allowed. Only members from the US permitted. Users must have a photo. Whatever. It's your group now, you can do what you want with it.
My issue is that the rules are not clear regarding what is allowed and what is not, and if mod discretion to delete posts extends past posts with personal attacks, then the rules should be reworded.
Otherwise, your enforcement does not correspond with your laws and you look hypocritical.
Especially when a mod insults and name-calls a member a troll, which to me is a blatant personal attack. That is at odds with the group rules and THAT double standard is what I take issue with.
Oh, I forgot another point. Calling a decision or policy "ridiculous" is not the same thing as attacking a member or a Mod. It's an opinion. We should not be so quick to the trigger that we discourage opinions, even if they disagree with what our Mods think.The very last thing that the FBC needs is something that discourages discussion. Between this group and the larger main FBC, there are over 2000 members. One problem I've seen is getting those members to discuss anything. You surely don't want to discourage the ones that do so.
Chris wrote: "The rules are fine. It's the behavior we've questioned."I disagree, actually. If the group will have strict guidelines, the rules should clearly state what is expected from members, and how violations will be handled.
Becky wrote: "Especially when a mod insults and name-calls a member a troll, which to me is a blatant personal attack. That is at odds with the group rules and THAT double standard is what I take issue with...."That's what really didn't set well with me either. Thank you for wording that so well.
And y'all can call me a "troll" if you like. It won't bother me much. But I do so hate double-standards.
Becky wrote: "Chris wrote: "The rules are fine. It's the behavior we've questioned."I disagree, actually. If the group will have strict guidelines, the rules should clearly state what is expected from members,..."
Well, yes. I believe I said that somewhere in my tl;dr posts. Or meant to, at least. Once more, you worded it better.
But yeah, whatever the rules are, they need to be clear and understood. And adhered to by the Mods as well as enforced.
Points taken. The offending 'Troll' post has been deleted.
Deleting the post doesn't change the BEHAVIOR. People have seen it, and been offended by not only the wording, but the fact that the mod who said it was so clearly at odds with the rules that the two of you agreed on, the very same ones that Jon claimed to be upholding by saying it. In my opinion, it's disingenuous to edit (Jon) to make it seem like it happened differently or delete (Sandra) the post and act like it never happened.
I have to say that I'm mildly surprised that both of you are so excited about this whole thing, as neither of you are active members of this group. Chris, you haven't posted since the end of the Warhost discussion, and Becky, you are only here transiently ...
Becky wrote: "Deleting the post doesn't change the BEHAVIOR. People have seen it, and been offended by not only the wording, but the fact that the mod who said it was so clearly at odds with the rules that the t..."What would you like to see in the way of amends that wouldn't be 'disingenuous?
I haven't posted because I got overwhelmed with reading commitments and real life, and I got behind in the series. I didn't wish to spoil future books before I had a chance to catch up. The series was pretty much the only discussion going on in this group.That said, inactivity does not make us not care about the treatment of people. People that were coming here and enjoying the group were upset, and once I saw why, I understood their concerns.
Personally, I've attempted to move on. I can agree to disagree with management and simply concentrate on my other groups and reading interests. That doesn't mean I can't make a statement when I feel something is terribly wrong, in the hopes of addressing those issues. And hopefully, seeing them corrected or compromised.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I have to say that I'm mildly surprised that both of you are so excited about this whole thing, as neither of you are active members of this group. Chris, you haven't posted since the end of the W..."Well who knows? I might stick around depending on whats up next.
I original posted because, like I said, I've been friendly with both you and Jon in other groups, and I was surprised to see such behavior from the two of you. People disagree all the time, yet here I see two nice people deleting comments out of hand and calling people trolls for stating their opinion.
I moderate a couple groups on Goodreads and I've never deleted a comment - even ones that probably SHOULD be deleted. I leave them as a history, and address the issue. Do they annoy me or piss me off? Sometimes, but sweeping shit under the rug only leads to resentful members who feel disrespected. So yeah, I said something.
I stayed because, honestly, I dug in my heels to see whether you'd just keep deleting everything I said or not. I'm glad you didn't, but I still don't think the situation was handled well at all.
"What would you like to see in the way of amends that wouldn't be 'disingenuous?"
A statement of what occurred, an apology to Michael and a rewording of the group rules to be clear as to what you expect from ALL group members and how violations are to be handled.
Everyone makes mistakes. It would show the group that you do respect them and are willing to be fair and take responsibility for handling things less than diplomatically.
Or not... It's not my call.
Michael is welcome to come back and repost his opinions.Rules amended to state contrary opinions will not be deleted as long as they are courteous. I think both Jon and I are willing to take responsibility for our actions. This has been an extremely trying and difficult time for us.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Michael is welcome to come back and repost his opinions.The rules stand as they are. Contrary opinions will not be deleted as long as they are courteous. I think both Jon and I are willing to t..."
Well, that's a shame. But very informative.
*shrug*
[Edit: Oh, I see you've amended the rules slightly. Well, here's hoping everyone agrees on what constitutes courteous and respectful opinions.]
I feel like I need to chime in here, since it seems like it was my comments that tipped the scales towards this whole debacle.I decided, after much debate, to leave this group (and FBC) because I was unhappy with the example being set by the moderators.
First we had JJ, who was rarely involved in anything group related. At most, I would see him come into a conflict days after it had died down, throw out some all bold reprimands, and then leave. This was annoying, but tolerable. But then entire threads started being deleted. I really had a problem with that. That on top of the public accusations made my Sandra.. it was too much for me.
I feel like I should clarify something. There may be people out there who think I just got upset because the author's wife is my friend, or because I wanted that series to win. This is not the case. I don't know her and I voted for a different series. I don't particularly like the whole 600 invite vote swaying message. But that said... I liked even less seeing a moderator publicly calling her unethical for her actions, in not just one thread but two. I seriously doubt the authors wife set about sending out the invites knowing it would cause this. I'm thinking it was more so that she was excited about the potential for her husband's series getting more exposure, and acted without thought. That doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean she should be publicly attacked. As I said before, I think it would have been better handled with a PM behind the scenes. But alas, too late to change what has already happened.
What I would like to see, more than anything, is an apology from Sandra for handling the situation as she did. It's apparent from your other comments that you regret acting out of anger, and an apology would go a long way to smooth a lot of this over, for me at least.
That said... I know I haven't been the most active member of this group, so my suggestions might not hold much weight. I kept up until Warhost, wanted to continue with Fugitive Prince, but never found the time and haven't caught up yet. I was hoping join in the discussions on the next series, but that may or may not happen now, depending on whether I feel comfortable coming back to and remaining in this group.
Dawn: What I would like to see, more than anything, is an apology from Sandra for handling the situation as she did. It's apparent from your other comments that you regret acting out of anger, and an apology would go a long way to smooth a lot of this over, for me at least.I thought I had, and I do regret acting out of anger.
Well it certainly seems you've adjusted the group rules again, although I'm not sure that all of it is relevant to this group... "Stories"? "Staff reporter"? Interesting. Making the group rules stick for every post was a nice touch! It's a shame that the issue regarding a mod engaging in "personal attacks, name calling, [...]etc" is being swept under the rug, though. Since, you know, that's the biggest issue, in my opinion.
*shrug* Perhaps the apology is implied.
The lack of response in this group is deafening, in more ways than one, and is very telling. I think I've said everything that there is to be said, so... Toodles!
Very well said and reasonable, Michael.
Well, as a newbie here, and a moderator of another group here on GR, I simply hope that WE can ALL now move forward, and get back to what we're all really here for--reading some great fantasy fiction series. Obviously, I haven't a clue about all of the personalities involved in any of the earlier business, nor do I want to know. The question we all need to ask ourselves is--Do we want this particular group to wither on the vine and become irrelevant; or is there a greater responsibility for each of us to collaborate in making it even better? Personally, I vote for the latter option.And as a newbie, I would certainly hate to see any one of you leave the group (e.g., Dawn--I think you are a valuable an important member, and I'd hate to see you leave). I think the important thing is to recognize that we all see, and interpret, things a little differently than the next person. Tolerance is a virtue.
Something happened today in Tucson, Arizona, that brings this point home to me personally. A very warm and wonderful woman, who happens to be a U.S. Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot and is fighting for her life. Seventeen other people were shot too, six fatally. Gabby is my parents' congresswoman--they've met her on numerous occasions, and she is truly a very special young woman.
The point is, whether it is politics at the national level, sitting down with the family around a turkey over the holidays, or discussing our favorite fantasy novels here on GR, we all need to stop for just a moment and make sure that each one of us brings all of our own personal honor, integrity, and respect to the table and to our postings.
So, lets move forward with no more recriminations; and let each of us put our best foot forward and share our love and interest in the great books that brought us all together to begin with.
I am ready to read and discuss some fabulous books and fantasy series with all of you. Can we do this?
Also well said Christopher - I heard about Congresswoman Giffords today, very sad news. :( I hope that she recovers and the people responsible are brought to justice. I agree that every group member has a responsibility to make their group (this and any group) a respectful place to be. Which is my point in stepping up and saying something about the disrespectful things I saw here.
I'm all for moving forward, but I think that those in a position of authority should set the example, rather than being the exception.
I agree with Michael that the promotion line is a very tricky one. It's OK to post that the series is up for nomination here in the author's group - which seems reasonable to me. Hey, it brings in new folks to the group & hopefully they'll stay & chat about other series, no matter who wins.Would it be OK for me to send the same notice out to all my friends in a PM? I would think so. They're my friends & probably have similar enough interests. I'd certainly do it if one of my kids had a book series up for a vote. I only have 123 friends, not 800+.
Just where is the promotion line drawn & what exactly is the rationale behind it? Maybe because it is late, but I'm just not getting it.
As I tried to say earlier, JJ left the group quite rapidly and did a number of things without consulting me. Perhaps it would have been better if I had posted the earlier statement in a message broadcast. I was, however, a little discombobulated at the time and had difficulty deciding what to do. Jon and I did our best. Both of us are sorry for all the hurt feelings/angry responses/noses out of joint. We're also trying to respond to your concerns.I hope you all feel better for venting and that perhaps, as Christopher suggested, we can move forward. I'm gratified to see that some of you are making nominations. Hope you decide to stick around.
Thank you for your post, Christopher.
Becky wrote: "Also well said Christopher - I heard about Congresswoman Giffords today, very sad news. :( I hope that she recovers and the people responsible are brought to justice. I agree that every group mem..."
I hear you, Becky, and all I would add is that we can best effect change by making the change in ourselves. We all need to lead by example. What I am really trying to do is get us moved off of the dime of assigning fault or blame.
It seems, to me, that there are a whole lot of members of this group; and that if WE all think this group is important, then we will move forward and continue to discuss the books and series that are important to us. There may be those who don't wish to participate, and that is their perogative, but that is no business of ours. Those who want to fight and argue will eventually tire of it if no one is willing to engage.
I am a man in my mid-fifties; and I've raised children, and I have grandchildren. I manage a medium-sized state agency as a profession. I am very used to dealing with a very diverse range of personalities. I just want all of us to scramble a bit, rediscover ourselves and our passion for discussing, in a group forum, these fantasy series that each of us love so much. Call me naive, but I think we can, and should, move past this. Lets put the better foot forward now.
Jim wrote: "I agree with Michael that the promotion line is a very tricky one. It's OK to post that the series is up for nomination here in the author's group - which seems reasonable to me. Hey, it brings i..."Spamming promotions are what I'm talking about, by authors or authors wives. Spamming is prohibited. If someone wants to send notices to their friends, that is not promotion. 600 friends is a little questionable, wouldn't you agree? As I said, I do not like rigged elections.
Christopher, I agree. But I also think that sometimes issues need to be addressed and acknowledged or they fester. I've addressed it, it's now been acknowledged, and I'm done.
Have a good evening. :)
Are these "600" (that's six-hundred) people that have gotten this notification random people on GoodReads, or are they people that have shown some degree of interest in picking up or continuing these books?I got a notice. I'm not sure if it's the same one that the 600 got (or the other 599 if it is) and I read it, thought this was nice, and moved on to something else. I didn't consider it spam.
Perhaps this is because I have shown interest in the series, as well as "friending" both the author and his wife. I have bought two books from them directly and had both signed. I won another through First Reads, which he also signed. There's a relationship there, be it a "friendship" in the traditional sense, or a writer-reader relationship.
So that's the question I have. Are these other 599 people that are likewise interested and might look to join an active discussion? Or is it unwanted junk filling an inbox?
And on that note of "discussing", that's what I'm doing. I had some questions that I thought would be useful to clarify. As have others here.I like to think that it has moved past being an "argument" and is simply a discussion. One that will help everyone understand each other.
I see. It's only "respectful discussion" when it's things that y'all want to hear.
Chris wrote: "I see. It's only "respectful discussion" when it's things that y'all want to hear."Oh, Chris, that is so not what I meant; and I truly want you to know and understand that I have no 'axe to grind' with any of you. All I was trying to do (am trying to do) is move us forward. It seems, to me, that it has all been said, whether or not everyone had the chance to say it.
Let us all try our very best not to--as William Wallace famously said--"pick a fight."
I was actually under the impression that all of this has been in the interest of moving forward.I think that some real progress has been made in here today. The group is moving forward and selecting nominations.
The dialogue in here has helped that, I believe. It has helped to enlighten and to learn.
But if we'd rather just stop all of that....
Hmm... Reading this last batch of comments, I'm a little confused. I, too, was under the impression that we had moved on. It certainly seemed like it to me... The tone of anger is gone, and now we just have people seeking to clarify rules. I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that. If we want to ensure this won't happen again, we all need to know where the line is drawn. That's a big part of moving on, we can't just sweep everything under the rug and forget about it.Like Chris and Jim, I still have questions about what's considered promotion and what isn't. The impression I'm getting is that it's fine to promote a series as much as you want, as long as you're not related to the author? And as long as it's not 600 friends. What about 100? 200? Where is the line?
Also, I wanted clarification on one of the rules in the new guidelines thread:
Please limit your comments to those that are relevant to the topic being discussed and to no more than a few paragraphs. We reserve the right to edit (or delete) for brevity, clarity, or off topic and other purposes.
The part I'm confused about is the part in bold. It sounds like it's saying moderators now have the right to edit (which isn't possible on GR, so that doesn't make sense) or delete comments that they think are too long? Or that aren't clear enough to them? Am I reading that right?
Dawn wrote: "The part I'm confused about is the part in bold. It sounds like it's saying moderators now have the right to edit (which isn't possible on GR, so that doesn't make sense) or delete comments that they think are too long? Or that aren't clear enough to them? Am I reading that right? "No, we don't have the right to edit your comments. We can only delete posts.
I will ask Sandra to edit that paragraph to remove the words "to edit".
I kind of realized the "edit" must be a mistake, since it's not an available function on GR. But I'm still looking for clarification on whether or not this also means posts can now be deleted if they are deemed too long by moderators. That's what it seems to imply, which seems a little weird to me.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Spamming promotions are what I'm talking about, by authors or authors wives. Spamming is prohibited. If someone wants to send notices to their friends, that is not promotion. 600 friends is a little questionable, wouldn't you agree? As I said, I do not like rigged elections."Thanks, but that still doesn't really get to the crux of the issue & clear it up for me. You're saying it's the numbers of the folks that were contacted that draws the line on spamming? If so, what's the number & in what time frame? Or is it the relationship with the author?
I find having 123 friends with another 22 following me fairly odd, but this is a fairly unreal situation. I don't think I have that many acquaintances in real life. Here the requirement for 'friends' is different &, for me, requires that we have some interest in each other's reading tastes.
The person in question is much more active than I am & has 800 friends here, so telling 600 people seems a reasonable number to me. My spouse isn't on GR, but all 3 of my kids are & I think I'd tell at least 90% of my friends if one of them had a book series discussion coming up.
If I make an announcement in a group or several, I could easily be telling thousands & probably would. I don't think that's a bad thing either. Most groups have a topic just for such promotions & that's what they're there for - garnering interest for other books, groups, authors & subjects that aren't the normal part of that group.
I received the notice & was glad to get it, so didn't consider it spamming. As a friend of both the author & his wife plus a member of their group, I thought it was quite proper & was glad to get the notice. I joined this group when it started, but left when I got behind on the current reading & it became obvious I wasn't going to catch up. (Spoilers, time, & a choked feed were the main reasons.) I did check in occasionally & rejoined when I found the next series was being voted on. So for me & this group, the notification was a good thing - you got me back.
;-)
As for 'rigging an election', I would consider that to happen if the poll was run & the results showed that a hefty percentage of the voters were fake accounts. Not necessarily no longer members - I voted & watched for a while, then dropped my membership, planning to come back when the discussion started, so I think my vote should have counted.
Anyway, it's a tricky situation & with all the odd ways we can & do legitimately use GR, I find this a tough rule to draw lines on & I do understand your concerns. I'd like to understand your criteria. Thanks for taking the time to read through this & I am glad that things have calmed down. Abrupt changes in leadership are a struggle for all concerned.
Jim wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Spamming promotions are what I'm talking about, by authors or authors wives. Spamming is prohibited. If someone wants to send notices to their friends, that is not promotion..."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.
Do you also object to the spamming ban? Seems similar to me.
Dawn wrote: "Hmm... Reading this last batch of comments, I'm a little confused. I, too, was under the impression that we had moved on. It certainly seemed like it to me... The tone of anger is gone, and now we ..."Please see the guidelines again. The offending portion has been removed. I agree it was silly.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I think the clarifying factor is whether or not you will receive some kind of financial benefit from the activities...."Ah! Now that makes sense! OK, thanks. Is that mentioned in the rules? If not, I think it should be.
On a side note, I glanced at some of my friends & saw that several had over 500 friends. One has 2500 & isn't an author or anything, just quite active in many different groups. It's mind boggling.
Jim wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I think the clarifying factor is whether or not you will receive some kind of financial benefit from the activities...."Ah! Now that makes sense! OK, thanks. Is that me..."
No, it's not in the rules. I will amend it.
Sandra aka Sleo 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.Do you also object to the spamming ban? Seems similar to me. "
I would just like to further clarify to make sure that everyone is on the same page. It seems like there are two rules that touch on the same or a similar type issue, but are very different.
1) Spamming of the Forum with advertising in any form (which includes signature spam, book cover spam, special solicitations to vote for a particular book or series, etc) is prohibited.
2)Any promotion or solicitation for votes for a nominated series that will result in financial gain will automatically disqualify that series for discussion.
Regarding #1 - I understood the spam rules to apply to THIS group. However, from your response quoted above, Sandra, it seems like you're stating that if a book comes up for a poll, and a person notifies more than their direct GR friend list of it, that is considered spamming and is grounds for the book to be disqualified. What exactly does "Forum" cover? FBCS? Goodreads? The Internet?
Regarding #2 - This rule seems to indicate that any promotion, which I take to mean anyone stating that a book is up for a vote in the HOPES that will garner support, or solicitation, which I understand to mean a direct request for a vote, is grounds for disqualification -- IF the author will receive financial benefit.
Considering that this group is aimed at discussing entire series of books, most likely people will need to buy the books in order to discuss them. Many cannot realistically rely on libraries to have an entire series, or to have the current book available for the specific time-frame needed and still keep up in the read. So, simply by the fact of winning the poll, the author will make SOME gain from it - even if only one person buys the series to join the read.
So, in short, what it seems that this rule is ACTUALLY saying is that the nominations put up for the poll should not be mentioned at all, as this would possibly sway the results which would result in financial gain to the author. Each person in the group gets their own vote and that's it.
Now I am sure that you'll scoff at this, Sandra, but I want to point out that this is how I interpret the rules AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. Without any background information or anything. As a new member might interpret them.
However, as Jim has already pointed out, this rule isn't being interpreted that way, and seems to be again in the realm of moderator discretion. Promotion of a book TO some and BY some is OK, as long as it's not TO "A", "B", or "C" or done BY "1", "2", or "3".
I think it more likely that the rules are intended to specify that authors or their relations may not promote or solicit votes for their own books. That seems much simpler and straightforward and reasonable to me.
Wow. Lots to read. But I'm caught up now.I do have one small item to point out, and I'll keep it short.
Possible financial gain seems to be the qualifying item in whether or not spamming is defined. On that note, L.E. Modesitt and Brent Weeks are members of GoodReads. So is Janny Wurts, whose series was read here in this group.
Is it possible that they had (in Janny's case) or could have (in the case of the other two), increased sales due to the exposure and to the selection of their works?
Jim was authorized to post an announcement in the L.E. Modesitt group on GoodReads. I agree 100% in his being ok to do so. I have no problem whatsoever with Janny's popularity and/or sales going up as result of readers on this site. I have no issue with Brent Weeks increasing his fanbase or his proportional sales from doing this.
So really, what's been itching at the back of my mind is, what's the difference, really? If it's ok with all of these Goodreads authors, why not the one that had the 600 invites?
I'm sorry. I really had intended that to be brief. I get wordy sometimes, I suppose.
Well, Hello, Everybody!! Wow! Go out of town for a couple of weeks and come back to a bloodbath! Look, friends, can we all calm down here just a little bit? This is not a political forum nor an opinion think tank -- it's a reading discussion site. I myself (I'm a sometimes mod) got censured for "off-topic" and it turns out I was. So I had to eat that. On unrelated threads, I can recall some real nasty insult-hurling, flat-out attack posts in past discussions, which got folks banned, too, and it is not a pleasant nor an elucidating, nor a liberating thing. It's ugly. I can relate to Sandra, sensing that level of anger building, deciding to terminate that discussion. I might have, too.Now, as to censorship from mods. Well.... isn't that what mods are FOR? Look, folks, I, too, have problems with authority, more than you'd ever guess. But if we don't have moderators with censorship authority, then there's no protection for any of us against really gross encounters of the rhetorical kind. Once we allow that, there's no stopping it, until we get to I----your mama! level stuff.
We've had a very keen (if a bit overheated) discussion of rules -- details and negotiations. We have reestablished a working ground. Let's move on beyond this and get back to discussing literature instead of GR Club rules. WE"RE WAY OFF TOPIC FOLKS!
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.
Oh yes. We're calm.
Charles wrote: "Now, as to censorship from mods. Well.... isn't that what mods are FOR? [...] if we don't have moderators with censorship authority, then there's no protection for any of us against really gross encounters of the rhetorical kind. Once we allow that, there's no stopping it, until we get to I----your mama! level stuff."Wow.
Umm, NO. That is not what moderators are "for". Moderators MODERATE:
–verb (used with object)
8.
to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
9.
to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion, etc.).
–verb (used without object)
10.
to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.
11.
to act as moderator; preside.
Censoring people because you don't like their word choice or tone or whatever, will only create anger and backlash... kinda like the one in this thread. First the feather, THEN the fist.
I moderate two rather larger groups on Goodreads, both with 1,000+ members, and I have never had a need to censor anyone. If there is a disagreement (and there have been a few, in both groups) I address it, and deal with it. I don't bash my group over the head with my "Authority" or censor them.
If ever a need arises where I would need to delete a comment, there would be absolutely no question as to why, because I would have already addressed the behavior first. If that gets no results, THEN action is taken.
Wow.
Group Rules: Spamming of the Forum with advertising in any form (which includes signature spam, book cover spam, special solicitations to vote for a particular book or series, etc) is prohibited. Personal attacks on authors, moderators or members is prohibited and may result in the deletion of your posts and your removal from the group at the discretion of the moderators.
Any promotion or solicitation for votes for a nominated series will automatically disqualify that series for discussion.
---------
The most pertinent sections from my original post (which was subsequently deleted - presumably for being off-topic? No moderator explanation was given, but it's possible...) are here:
-----------
I'm really appalled at the mod behavior I've seen in this (http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...) thread, and I'm surprised that regular members don't seem to see any problem with it. I certainly would not remain a member of a group in which the moderators so blatantly disrespected their members.
I wasn't here for Michael's original comment, so I can't say whether what he said was inflammatory or not (although I strongly doubt it), but from both Sandra and Jon's own admission, the problem with his post is that he used the word "ridiculous". That word seems absolutely appropriate for what I'm seeing, and I'm seeing it as an outsider who hasn't been involved in this group at all. Speaking as a mod of several groups here, it seems rather tyrannical to me to delete posts simply because one does not like the poster's word choice. Would it not have been better to simply address the issue without name-calling?
(to) Moderate: v.
- to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.
- to act as moderator; preside.
Both of these definitions of the term seem to have been trashed. This seems rather more like a dictatorship with the mods saying "do as I say, not as I do".
Jon personally attacked a member by calling him a "TROLL" (an action that IS specifically prohibited and may lead to post and user deletion from the group, according to the rules I'm looking at right now) yet the comment remains, as does she, and it seems this is apparently fine -- since the person posting the comment is a mod. If this does not point to the fact that moderators seem to follow their own rules, I don't know what does. I fully expect for the comment to be deleted though, if only to prevent further discussion because of it -- If nobody sees it, it never happened, right?
Then Jon wrote: "I wanted to reiterate the recently updated group posting rules. [...] I prefer to enjoy, encourage and participate in respectful discourse." This is absurd. Calling a member a "TROLL" is pretty much the last thing I would call "respectful discourse". Once again, do as I say, not as I do.
The group rules ACTUALLY state: "Personal attacks on authors, moderators, or members is prohibited and may result in the deletion of your posts and your removal from the group at the discretion of the moderators." This rule indicates that the moderators can or will delete posts at their discretion if they contain PERSONAL ATTACKS on any of the people mentioned, not that moderators will delete any posts they don't like or agree with.
Chris is absolutely right when he states that members should have clear rules to abide by if they are expected to be held to them. And to further emphasize the point, if it's not abundantly clear by now, ALL group members, mods included, should be held to the same standard of respect in discussion.
--------
I have removed nothing from my post other than my statement that I joined the group to comment on this issue after seeing Chris's comment in my feed, and my prediction that my post would likely be deleted.
I would request for the moderators to specify which section of my post was in violation of the rules listed above (copied from the group homepage and newly updated by Sandra and Jon).
I did not spam the forum with any advertising.
I did not personally attack any user or author or moderator.
I did not solicit votes for a poll.
I simply posted regarding the surprising moderator activities I've seen here. I've been in other groups with both Sandra and Jon previously, and I would not have expected this kind of behavior from either.