board77

I put a note on the post, too.



Thank you, Cerin, for being so nice about it.

If anybody needs me I'll be in Zanzibar.

Bring me back something nice!

I, too, am against the public or even discreet request for a limiting of a poster's permissions. It's not the job of the admins to regulate another's posting hours unless some sort of punishment ban is being enforced. I like the idea that you can control your own hours and permissions. That would be cool. Is there any way to change it so we can change our title by ourselves? I've alway meant to post my title, but I'm just lazy and I'd probably actually do it if I could myself.

Unfortunately, titles are in the admin panel, TED, which only the highly skilled, technically literate people entrusted with all the critical operations of--

I can't go on.

But you can tell me what you want here, or PM it to me, or post in the Titles thread, and I'll change it this evening.

Prim, I think all admins have done the same at least once. My "victim" was Mummpizz.

Not that I want to be disenheartening, but for users to be able to change their own posting settings - well, it can't be done on this free phpbb board. But - and that's the upside, I'm quite confident things like that can be tweaked to some extent when we move to our own place. Squiddy more than once said (and I trust she knows) that customizations like that (and many others) are totally within the realm of possibilities - future possibilities.

It would be quite a nice feature I fully agree (but certain fora would have to be excluded from this... e.g. the Jury room, but then that's obvious, isn't it?)

Don't fret Prim I bet you that's one mistake you'll never going to repeat I think I once (at the very beginning) managed to turn a whole forum off - till someone was kind enough to really yell at me. I was the only one who still could see it Now that's a blooper!

_______________
Resident witch

Eruname, thank you very much for starting this thread. I completely support your statement and had inserted something into the convention discussion to the same effect a week or so back.

For information, I have been asked privately recently by a member to remove their permissions and delete their name. No reasons given. I refused to do so.


Prim I did that to a post of Ethel's when I was starting out. Fortunately for me I realised in time to utlise the back button. But it's a really normal mistake to make!

Prim, I think I did that to halplm once. Or one of our boys anyway... they had a post exclaiming about another male's sex appeal up there all day before I noticed. Ahem. So don't worry, especially since Cerin understands.

Allow me to say a word about manipulation and ulterior motives.

When one is invited to join a message board which is closed, one cannot check it out before one joins, assess whether one agrees with the principles and purpose, whether one will indeed feel comfortable...

One makes the decision to do so because one believes what one is told - or not. But if one believes what one is told, then it is a leap of faith; a leap of trust that the truth has been presented, that those doing the presenting are doing so truthfully.

What if one arrives and then finds that the reality is not the version of truth one can live with?

Perhaps one persists for awhile. Having made the decision - one's name is listed on the membership after all and that it can't be undone, one can't pretend it didn't happen even if one comes to regret it. But how was one to know, if one was not allowed to see for oneself before signing in blood?

Is that manipulation? Being trapped by one's faith? Or one's naivety?

But if one then states one's position: "I've looked around, I've given it my best shot, but this is really not for me - I can't live with this; I feel compromised, I feel disappointed, disheartened, frustrated, cheated perhaps....please let me out and shut the door behind me..."

Ah no! Then there are howls of outrage! Manipulation! Poor corporate citizenship! Disloyalty! Ulterior motives!

Well excuse me, but who is manipulating who?

No one manipulated you. If you were given the wrong impression before joining, that was not intentional and is no one's fault. If you decide you no longer wish to be associated with the board, explain your reasons to those that matter to you, and simply stop posting - you'll be disassociated from the board soon enough.

Hmm. You're right, Imp. It's not quite as simple, since we're closed.

I keep thinking in terms of an open board.

But still...when someone is invited...we want them here. And we want that invitation to stand whether they decide to stay or not. It'd be weird to say 'okay then give us back your invitation'... I'm still a member on TORC and it doesn't always make me happy to be associated with the place. But I know I'm still welcome there whenever I choose to come back. I can close the door behind me, but I can't really demand that people slam it in my face...ugh I'm bad at analogies.

To some extent we all manipulate...just by wording our posts in ways that will make people react. But there's a difference between 'manipulating' on our own, and expecting others who do not agree to help us. I just don't see a reason for the admins to ban people on request. The only reason I could see is a courtesy of the admins.

I can understand however that while the board is closed it's complicated, especially since the memberlist is visible to all.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

No one manipulated you. If you were given the wrong impression before joining, that was not intentional and is no one's fault.

How the hell do you know? That's is a disingenous thing to say.

Much is made of "this is NOT anti-TORC, simply a MB of friends who wish to have a democratic place to talk"...yet I have heard more than one poster privately say that the anti-TORC sentiment is more pervasive, disappointing, and ubiquitous than was admitted to.

And as for...

Quote:

If you decide you no longer wish to be associated with the board, explain your reasons to those that matter to you, and simply stop posting - you'll be disassociated from the board soon enough.

How far is this from if you don't like it, just go somewhere else? Don't tell me this is different! If this sentiment had been addressed to you elsewhere you'd be blowing your gasket again.

Look, I'm not as pissed off as the last two posts would imply. I'm pointing out that some of what I've been reading here and in response to Ethel (and wilko and Oldtoby) is pretty self-righteous, sanctimonious stuff.

Repeatedly I've seen that when the anti-TORC stuff gets really heated and someone without a TORC problem expresses their ambivalence there are loud, overwhelming smacks. You may not realise it, but really - you express and vent and blow steam but I'm not allowed to? I can't say I'm disappointed, frustrated, tired, annoyed by this persistent attitude?

And telling me that I'm being manipulative and have an ulterior motive when I say I disagree with this and don't want to be associated with it does not help!

I'm not a model B77 citizen? Okay. Neither the hell are the majority of those who've blown a gasket.

I agree with Impenitent on this. The fact is that there is little concrete evidence out there for potential members to consider before making what seems now to be an irrevocable commitment to this message board. This should not mean that you must forever be identified with the site even if you feel compromised by the attitude and behaviour of some of the posters on it. Especially if the technical facility exists to take your name off the list, which I understand it does (?). And I do share Impenitent’s concern about the tone of some of the responses to this point of view.

I was going to say that I think the personal opt in/opt out mechanism is not a bad idea at all and it would be good if it could be investigated in the future. It might help stem over-access to the site for those who may not have the time to spare or the self-control of other members of the board. Whether or not this is followed up by a posted announcement from the individual poster about the reason why the switch was flicked would be up to them. This would also remove the heat from the admins, who are the ones who have to give effect (or not) to this kind of request at the moment.

(edited: spelling)

Perhaps there ought to be a graceful way to resign membership. Given the suspicions and acrimony toward this closed board at a certain open board we've all posted at, and given that b77's membership list is openly visible, there might indeed be people who wanted to check us out but concluded that they don't want their name associated with the board.

I'm not saying that's the case with anyone who has already asked to have permissions revoked.

Asking to resign simply sounds much more reasonable and less manipulative than asking to be banned. Seems to me that it ought to be an option. Or is this a lifetime commitment?

(Just for the record, I intend to stay around.)

Imp, I think we may be mixing up two problems...that of being able to talk about disappointment etc. and that of the manner chosen to make a statement. Simply put...and this is a general example and not an analysis of you or anyone...if someone wants to criticise b77 and put those criticisms to use in changing things...cool...if someone wants to criticise b77 and give up on it and leave...less cool but okay...but if someone wants to criticise b77, give up and leave, and wants this public...okay...they can make a thread...but by asking the admins to ban them they're more or less asking the admins to help them say 'It's not working and I don't believe it will'. That's not something the admins should have to do, because those admins are working for b77 in the very hope that things WILL work.


edit: I think the problem only really exists as long as we're closed. TORC is a lifetime commitment, is it not? And practically every other messageboard out there. Now- I change my mind slightly- perhaps as long as we remain closed, people can be banned at request. But as soon as we open, no more of that.

Quote:

How far is this from if you don't like it, just go somewhere else? Don't tell me this is different! If this sentiment had been addressed to you elsewhere you'd be blowing your gasket again.

Asking to be banned is not the same as trying to stay and fix the problems because you used to love the place.

If I'd requested that I be banned from TORC then I would have expected to be told to leave without making a fuss, but I didn't, I wanted to help it.

Wampus, I agree with you that asking to resign should be allowed. In fact, my understanding is that this is exactly what Ethel wanted to do, and that ber (totally with good intentions) changed her permissions instead because she was afraid that deleting Ethel's membership would delete all of her posts.

People should be allowed to disassociate themselves with a closed board, if they decide that they don't wan't to support the idea of a closed board. Much as I respect ber and understand her intentions, I have come to decide that it was a mistake not to just delete Ethel all together when she requested that that be done, instead of just changing her permissions.

and for ber

and for Ethel (even if she can't see it)

and for Wampuscat

and for everyone else

Thanks Voronwe

I am torn over this issue, because on the one hand, I understand Ethel's motives for wanting to leave and even be deleted from B77; I share some. However, on the other, I am a founding member of this board and having someone tell me that they want to be deleted from the memberlist is a bit of a slap in the face - "I want nothing to do with you and your friends".

Even if I was saddened and conflicted by the issue, I did what I thought was a reasonable compromise. However, Ethel said she'd rather be deleted altogether, and I see the point; a compromise is wishy-washy and not what she wanted. I see that deletion makes more sense, but I can't bring myself to do it - yet.

I strongly believe that it's a member's right to remove their presence from the board completely. It saddens me and hurts me personally that they feel like that, but I will defend their right to protest and make as strong a statement as they deem is necessary.

So, to answer Iavas's request - no, I won't reinstate Ethel against her wishes. Some other admin may want to do it, but it goes against *my* principles, so I won't do it.

"I would not use the Ring. Not if Minas Tirith were falling in ruin and I alone could save her."

backatcha, voronwe.

I cringe at the thought that all of Ethel's posts would vanish if she were deleted from the memberlist. Pardon my ignorance, but is that automatic? It makes it as if a poster never existed, which gives me the creeps somehow.