Posted SotB

Yeah, I also PMd extensively with Junior asking him not to go off the deep end when he had questions here. I clarified the beanman situation for him. They are friends IRL from a long time ago, so he's really unhappy. But as I pointed out, bean left us no choice.

Agree with you, by the way, and at this point I really think it's just a couple of gripey voices.

 
I did not know he was buds with Beanman. That makes more sense. But it does NOT make sense to me how people get so in a lather, shoot their mouth off, and get banned.

If you don't like the board or the direction, leave, but don't burn your bridges. Just move on amiably, because maybe someday you'll want to come back. It's a lot easier to walk back into a place when the door hasn't been locked behind you.

 
Bean was also buds with Chaddy, so I think that's where that one came from. It sucks. Lots of people are sore about Chaddy.

I think we're going to get to the latter point with Junior sooner or later, but hopefully it's amicable.

 
Sorry, had to post one more time in response to Junior saying I told him this whole thing wasn't about bullying. I don't see how he possibly can be still confused on this, so I clarified. Bowing out of thread now
default_biggrin.png


 
zoogs said:
Sorry, had to post one more time in response to Junior saying I told him this whole thing wasn't about bullying. I don't see how he possibly can be still confused on this, so I clarified. Bowing out of thread now
default_biggrin.png
Click to expand...
He's not confused, and never was. His motivation is to try and find a loophole to get his buddies back on the board.
At this point, I think we've said all we can. Right now, we have folks who simply don't care and are not interested. We have folks who want to know, but aren't hostile. We have Junior and his ilk. To this latter group, nothing we say is going to placate them. Period. The second group have a kind of prurient interest similar to looking at a car wreck - they're interested, want to know more, but unless something catches their eye, they are fine. The more we say, the more we catch their eye.

Let Junior and his buddies tilt at windmills. If we make it clear that we are not overturning the bans, that takes care of them.

 
Have we ever overturned a ban? I don't think we have, because to be banned around here means someone darned well earned it, but it seems like every time we ban a popular member that question comes up again.

I know some people have circumvented the ban and we haven't noticed, then chose to look the other way (with a shorter leash), as in Creighton Duke/UGAHusker, but those are rare occasions, and not overtly due to our choice.

 
We have overturned a ban once or twice as I recall. the first time we banned formerfan we let him back after he made a plea that he was a changed man. Couple others like that. Funny thing is, I think in every case we had to ban them again. It's funny - the ones that sneak back on have worked out a lot of times. Cleaned up their act and behaved. It's as if the act of having to come in and be circumspect changed their DNA.

 
There was quite the discussion about "thicker skin" in that thread overnight. I'd like to suggest a response to that:

HuskerBoard (the Mods/Admins) make the decision on what action is taken on any given situation. A member may have extremely thin skin, but no matter how much they complain, it is OUR decision, not that member's, whether a situation warrants action. The focus of "thicker skin" complaints should not be at fellow members but at the Mods & Admins.

That probably isn't worded well, but the point is that members cannot instigate action against other members. They can't whip up a witch hunt against each other using us as their weapon because we decide when a situation warrants action. Finlay/Abdullah is a perfect example of that, as is saunders45. They both reported the hell out of each other, and we actually took action on only a fraction of those reports.

The focus needs to change from each other to the Mods, especially as it pertains to discipline.

 
I think this is with respect to the bullying thing? Some people are going to blame the victim but I think it's rather self explanatory to most that if someone falls into the perpetrator category, they will not be viewed as a member the admins want to keep around. Only a couple guys don't get this and that's really kind of turned into a "Aw yeah I'm old school none of this new age liberal crap" rant that is going nowhere.

The other half of that is when members 'razz' on each other. Those cases we really prefer people to just be bale to still handle themselves on a message board, even with people they don't like or disagree with, WITHOUT us having to step in. IF that proves impossible, we'll have to step in somehow, but certainly not as a weapon used by one against the other. I think we say that a lot, generally, although some people will just fail to get it.

My only worry with responding to that off-the-rails discussion is that it would give any more legs to it. We can clarify this stuff at any time, and we have. This seemed to be just a couple guys beating their chest and running in circles.

I dunno what's up with Minny, by the way, but I would hope he kinda gets this. He reported Matty and when I talked to him about why I wasn't going to take any action unless it got to be a point where I really had to, he seemed to understand.

 
I think I'm now in the camp if just let the members talk about it. I semi-regret going back and forth with Junior yesterday.

I'd just let it fizzle at this point. I mean, watch it in case there is legitimate reason to take some sort of action and reply. I don't think there will be though.

 
I also find it interesting that - I think - everyone who has claimed to be leaving the board is still here. Not sure if they're posting anywhere but following along, +1ing and answering PMs.

This will blow over, people will cool down and most will end up back as they were.

 
Back
Top