Accountability in a police state.

Beesie, thank you for that explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. This is going to be tough for me to say because I'm not one for disagreeing just for argument's sake, but I'm not completely convinced that it works that way. At least that is my understanding and I could very well be wrong. I believe that if a post is reported by the community, however many times to warrant it's removal, it says "this post has been removed by the community". If the mods have done the removing, it says "this post has been removed by the moderators". I don't believe it's an automatic thing. My impression is, and again I could be wrong, that it doesn't reach the "deleted by moderators" stage until after it has been reviewed. Now I'm guessing that with 55,000+ members they are expecting that we, as adults, have the ability to generally moderate ourselves and be civil to each other. I doubt that having them read every post is a realistic goal, nor should it be necessary. It is however, necessary for them to step in and deal with complaints, harassment, bullying etc., but unless they've been made aware of the situation, it's unfair to expect them to step in., given the amount of posting that's done in a day. Having said that I believe that once the situation has been reviewed, they deal with it on a totally impartial, factual basis. Granted they wouldn't be aware of the pm's and the bickering that goes on privately, but I do believe they are making judgement calls based on what each individual has posted. I would be inclined to think that is why some are re-instated, banned temporarily or banned permanently. Having favourites sounds kind of ridiculous. They have no idea who we are and in all probability, don't care to get to know us personally. However, just like in real life, if you're one of those who is a chronic complainer or always blamed for harassment, I can guess it probably leaves an impression and that it might (and it's a stretch) , skew their opinion., though I seriously doubt it. As for members volunteering to help moderate....serious??? There are a lot of women here with issues. Do you really want them in charge of what's appropriate? That would be nuts. Just as a footnote, the most recent proof that they are taking care of things can be seen in the DCIS forum on the "RE: A goodbye" thread. I really do think they are doing their job and doing it well. I know I wouldn't be as gracious in giving someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some of the stuff I've read on here, but I truly believe that in the majority of cases, that's exactly what they're doing. If not, I have no other explanation as to why some are still allowed to post here because IMO, they are breaking the rules, constantly. I really dislike voicing my opinion on this again just to re-hash it over and over, but I think it's important for someone new to the boards to feel comfortable. Being new, and reading some of the bickering, IMO, would deter them from participating and that's never a good thing. You never know who is going to hold that one piece of information that helps us live with this disease. Nobody should ever feel uncomfortable, unwanted, stupid or scared to post when fighting a disease as horrible as cancer., yet we see it on a regular basis. Perhaps, if nothing else, it will make us all mull over the rules of conduct to make sure we're adhering to them.

gracie, I looked at the post you referred to in the DCIS forum. I have two observations.

First, I notice that Deirdre has not posted again since her good-bye post. She was a valuable and frequent participant on the DCIS and reconstruction forums, offering great support and great advice. So it appears that the way the situation was handled has in fact driven her away.

Second, the response from Melissa came yesterday, 2 weeks after Deirdre's post. What took so long? As for the response, Melissa does not address the concern that led Deirdre to leave the board except to say "this was the thought to be the best answer (that is, delete the thread)." What's really interesting to me about the whole situation, and the response, is that by coincidence it happens that I raised the exact same issue in a post in this very forum several months ago. I did this after a couple of threads were deleted in response to a just a few posts that were problematic. I had put a lot of time and effort into researching and writing answers to some questions in those posts, and I was very frustrated that my efforts were thrown away and lost. The same was true of a number of other women who had responded in those threads. The answer I got from Tami was exactly the same as the answer Melissa posted yesterday. And interestingly, my thread raising the concern, which several others had posted in and agreed with, was deleted.

So I guess I don't agree that this is an example that shows that the job is being done well.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

Beesie, I sent you a pm. I hope that's o.k.

Edited to remove a statement I made that is not accurate. 

I could be wrong but I believe it was started about me (my post and getting banned).  Thank you for wanting to change things so that no on else ever had to go through what I went through.  I am sorry to see that nothing has changed.

I am confused as to why anyone would not think it was the moderators fault for banning if they are the ones to monitor.  I dont know what else they do but their title on the site is "moderator", so isnt that their job?  IMHO it means just that, not to just ban people.  To do the job properly I would think they would read the reported post then do what is needed to correct the issue.  Yes they have the right to do what they want.  In my case I was new to the board and YES I did miss blocking out a some cuss words.  But I was in such a time of NEED, I was so distressed, I could not imagine why anyone could not see through my pain and report me.  But they did.  Like I have said before, why would someone not just send me a PM asking me to clean it up?  If I didnt then by all means report me.  As far as the moderators why not just send me an email asking me to clean it up?  Or DEMAND I clean it up or suffer the consequences?  Nope.  Just banned.  To me that is doing a poor job.

This is a discussion board, -noun an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate

See it doesnt mean that we all agree. 

I was sure I knew who reported my post but I was just given information that in fact I was wrong about who reported me.  Funny I was all mad at someone for nothing.  I am glad I am the type of person that look further into things.  I could have stalked the woman I thought it was, sent her nasty pms, or reported her to try to get her banned like I thought she did me.  I am so glad I am not like that and I didnt. 

Now the really funny thing is the person that MOST LIKELY reported me, I sent a pm to complementing her on something (right after I was allowed to return).  We also discussed how the F word offended her.  I apoligized. There was no rudeness, no hate.  People can agree to disagree.  People can also just click away.  It is so simple I really just dont understand, why someone would go out of their way to create problems for someone.  Dont we all have enough problems?

As you all know I am kinda negative about cancer.  Sorry I have yet to be all warm and fuzzy about it.  I am however very positive about the rest of my life.  I am grateful to all the ppl I have met here. 

OK, perhaps I was a bit harsh about the monitors.  Sorry Tami and Melissa.

If anyone has constructive suggestions as how to help the site, and protect members please list them so that we can help. 

Here are my ideas...

I am not sure if the monitors have a way of seeing who is reporting the posts.  If they do, maybe they can keep track of the reporters to see if they are the problem or if the post itself is the problem.

If a post has been removed by "the community" maybe the monitors can reinstate the post if found not to have broken the rules.  Maybe with a note stating the following post has been reviewed by the moderators and has been found to be appropriate.  Or disengage the report this button on that post.

What other ideas are out there? 

Great idea Beesie! 

I love bees check it out!  This is when I got my mohawk, before I lost my hair.  I died it hot pink on top too.  LOL The tattoo I got for my birthday last year. 

Thanks keep em coming ladies and gents.

What on earth is going on here?  There was nothing in Beesie's posts that violated the rules.

I agree -- if a post is removed "by the community" then the poster should be told who complained.  Anonymity cannot help but lead to abuse.  Remember "The Little Foxes"?

Gracie, you're right - you can't please everyone all the time.  And when that happens, the most appropriate response is to "turn the other cheek" (as I said in one of my deleted posts) and ignore whatever it is that you don't like, or the people you don't like.  Deleting their posts should not be considered acceptable behavior, even if you've displeased with what someone else wrote.  If a post is not in violation of the rules, it should not be deleted.  And any community member who deletes posts simply for personal reasons should be dealt with by the moderators.  I'm fairly good at seeing gray in things but to me, this one is pretty much black and white.

Did the moderators have to deal with a difficult situation with the mets forum, when a number of early stage women were posting questions there and sometimes making inappropriate comments?  Yes, it was a difficult situation.  Some people were happy with the resolution; others were not.  But the fact is that lots of us have difficult jobs and lots of us have been in situations, either on the job or personally, where we've had to make difficult decisions that we knew wouldn't please everyone.  I had one job where I was in that position pretty much every day for almost 3 years.  The fact that it's hard or that someone might be upset doesn't change the fact that the job still must be done. 

....and now I will forever shut up on the issue.....I know I promised you that before!!!!!

Moderators have a thankless job. But I'll thank you.

Anne

Thank you Mods for all you do but I have a question. What does it take to reinstate a stage IV lady that used an alias to get back on the board and didn't break any rules this time? Don't we all need to forgive her? I recently read that the guy who bombed the plane over Scotland years ago killing many people was released from jail because he is stage IV. Surely Paprika deserves a second chance, don't you think? She obviously needs something that she finds here.

Mods - I agree you have a very difficult task in this instance.

But - what about one more try?           

The quality of mercy is not strained.........

Thank you Moderators, just wanted you to know that you are appreciated.  Also to the people that want banned people to come back, please make it ALL banned people not just one.  Thank you.

Well, I don't think spammers should be allowed back.  I don't think people who come here touting miracle cures for cancer should to be allowed back.  I don't think people who signed up only to promote their own websites or sell products should be allowed back. Some people have been banned for very good reasons, let's not forget that. 

As I see it, there are special circumstances in Paprika's case.  She is Stage IV.  And she has shown that she can and wants to participate on the board without violating any rules.  If she is allowed back (and that's a big "if"), are there others who have been permanently banned who should also be allowed back?  Perhaps, but I don't know if there are any others who have been permanently banned who even want to come back, except for the spammers and those promoting their miracle cures. So let's not pre-judge every situation based on one situation.  There may be others who also want and warrant another chance, but if the Moderators decide to allow Paprika back, I trust that they will review those other cases and make the right decision based on the facts of those cases.