Or defensiveness perhaps.
Hey, Binarydrone was the only one I called a douchebag, and only because he was acting like one. Otherwise, I agreed with the suggestion in theory but felt it to be unworkable in practice.
Sure. Any post in which you act like a jerk is going over the line.
Simple, huh?
Ah, so am I a douchbag from an administrative point of view (as in, are you speaking as a mod when you call me a douchebag?) or were you treating us to a delightful mix of speaking as a mod in that post and expressing your opinion as a poster? Either way, from the heart, suck the shit from my ass.
You’re only paying $14.95/year. That’s not enough money to make people put up with douchebags. And yeah, you’re being one. Do you really need an email to confirm it?
We’ve tried it, and yes, it’s unworkable. Our message board isn’t set up to send out email warnings. Even if it were, well, from the email reports I get, I wouldn’t rely on it. When the message board gets swamped, one of the first things that gets dropped is the system sending out emails. I don’t know how many times someone has changed an email address and not gotten the followup email to complete the change. Then I have to go in and reset the member status by hand. While I don’t really mind doing this, I imagine that it’s darn frustrating for the poster. I’d hate to rely on the system to email notifications. Putting notifications in threads is far more reliable.
Warning in the thread serves other purposes: other people can see what sort of behavior gets warned, and other people can see THAT the behavior is warned. For example, if someone posts a racist/sexist/whatever comment, and gets warned for hate speech, then other posters will see that this is the sort of thing that gets warned, and that the offending post has had action taken on it. When I do warnings by email, I usually get quite a few more reports because people didn’t see the warning, as it’s private.
If we ever get board private messages turned on, then I think THAT would be the ideal way to warn people, in addition to warning in the thread. We tested PMs a while back, for moderation staff only, and found that it slowed the board down too much to even think about turning them on for our posters. That’s a pity, we’d like to be able to offer it to our posters.
I fully expect to find myself banned someday. I’m so forgetful about which threads I’ve been participating in and rarely look back. My email goes unchecked for weeks.
If I’m in danger, someone send up a flare.
Love,
Zoe
Forget the VBB internal mail system (which can tend to be pretty crap) and just click on the members nick and choose ‘send email to xxx’. If the member doesn’t allow people to use/see their email address then tough titties for them.
I can understand that it slows the board down whit full membersaccess but I don’t see how the server couldn’t handle 10 or 20 PMs being sent between staff per day.
I think the OP has a good idea.
Maybe put warnings in a thread of their own. Anybody can check it anytime to see if they have any.
I think that there is a wide spectrum of warnings, and that some would warrant an email and some wouldn’t. Mods sometimes warn posters not as a “this is your final warning prior to banning”, but as simply a reminder of the boundaries. I don’t think that needs an email. Now, if someone is truly “on the bubble”, they should probably get an email.
The poster is too lazy to check the thread in which he/she/it has been participating in. They’re likely not going to check into a seperate thread to see if behavior from the original thread has garnered them a warning.
Besides, the OP is about making warnings more private. Starting another thread is still making them public.
Don’t you find it ironic that she’s been banned?
I think the characterization of laziness is arbitrary. A poster might not check the thread again simply because he has lost interest in the topic. Or because work has called him away for a couple of weeks. Or because he got embroilled in some other thread and simply forgot about it. Those things happen to me all the time.
Well, okely dokely then.
got no problem w/them being public - I’m interested in warnings being seen by the poster warned. There’s a sticky about keeping valid email. I don’t think it’s a given that posters routinely check all threads they’ve ever posted in.
My reading of the OP is that they are worried about missing a warning, not that they necessarily wanted it in private.
where do you get that idea from the OP ???
You don’t have access to my e-mail, therefore the warning given is for my eyes only, unless I choose to post that I was warned. Seemed to me that’s what the OP was getting at. Maybe I was misunderstood. If I did, then I’m taking the administrations side on this. E-mailing and posting the same warning directed at the same poster is just making more unpaid work for the mods.
General warnings, “Don’t accuse someone of being a troll” for example, should be posted to the thread. Specific warnings, “Cop out, huh? How dare you speak to me like that. Temper that tone or it’s 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you, pal. Besides, you’re only paying $8, so ixnay on the eefay” should be e-mailed to the poster.
I suppose I imagined a work scenario. I screw around on the floor, I don’t expect to be called on the carpet in front of the entire staff. I would prefer that the counseling be done in private, with as small an audience as necessary. The department as a whole screws around, it’s pointless and impractical to call in the entire staff individually, so a staff meeting is held.
I can send you a gmail invite, but I can see from this that you already have one. However, you are still using hotmail? Does not compute. Does hotmail have a built in spell-check, like gmail does? I bet not.
Ah hell, I will send you a gmail invite right now, regardless of how many you already have, in hopes you will convert.
Um, am I the only one having some real vivid mental images here?