Okay, here are my questions. All quotes directly from the timeout explanation post thing.
I'm sorry if this violates the "no snide" expectation. I'm trying to be evenhanded here, really truly.
- kindness and respect towards your fellow members
Like banning them (randomly or not -- there seems to be some question about this in some contradictory statements)? And then providing only the most perfunctory explanation as to why, while dealing in generalizations and giving no specific example of anything ANY member (banned or not) has done to offend?
- not going along with bullying and other bad behavior by others on the board and standing up for the rights of your fellow members
I'm sorry, but it's bullying and bad behavior to ban other members without warning when they haven't done something wrong. I'm going to stand up for the rights of my fellow members and protest that action and request an apology from the administration.
I'm sorry, but it's bullying to stifle any dissent to your actions. I realize it's tough dealing with the crazies on a daily basis, and I realize it's possible to get burned by permitting too much lip from unruly folks, but when people just want to understand and work things out like rational adults -- without personal attacks or anything -- it's completely out of line to delete them in the name of "positivity." It was simply unrealistic to expect a totally positive reaction to a capricous act like an arbitrary ban of thirty members. You don't enforce good feelings by stifling dissent -- you enforce good feelings by encouraging healthy discussion so people feel respected and heard rather than tyrannized.
3. To set an example by our actions for others
I'm assuming you want to set a GOOD example, right? So how would you feel if your position were reversed with the members who were banned and are being silenced? How would you feel if you were kicked out for no clearly articulated reason, and when you tried to get answers, you were simply told to shut up?
What kind of example does the administration's conduct set here? How can the administration say with a straight face that it's keeping its pledge, even from the first
minute?
7. To be clearer about where the line is drawn between acceptable and not acceptable.
Why was this line (apparently) not drawn
before the administration felt compelled to "randomly" ban over two dozen members?
And is constructive disagreement with the administration now no longer acceptable?
4. To keep our personal feelings out of our moderating decisions and to keep a level head.
Seriously? Random three-day ban of thirty members is levelheaded? Can the administration name ONE other forum wherein anything remotely like this happened and had it ultimately turn out for the forum's best interest? As an experienced forumer in a lot of other places (and occasional admin myself), this one has me flabbergasted. I'd honestly like to know in what universe the administration thought this was a good idea.
5. To take time out when over-stressed so as to not take it out on members and better handle situations.
I would -- as respectfully as possible -- like to suggest that the administration needs to take a time out itself. Whether the administration intends it or not, its recent actions VERY MUCH feel to us members as if the situations are being badly handled and members are being tyrannized on the administration's personal whims.
