I agree with the the board-wide advocacy stuff and pretty much everything covered.
Many places IRL have a "removal without reason" policy (esp nightclubs
). It is put in place to cover a company's butt. It means the person can have recourse, but at the end of the day, if you are in the too hard basket, they don't have to explain anything to anybody and point blankly at the rule.
Personally, I'm glad it's out in the open. At least it will be discussed now. I've known many posters get banned and even lose their pm facility so they can't tell their friends. AND they are not allowed to post a goodbye thread or even mention they have been banned or take issue with being banned. They are just banned. So there are lots of people who are banned and the community can't "learn" from the experience or vent about it or heal. We just lose a friend.
I would like to make a suggestion, which pertains to the rules so that's why I'll put it here. It would be great to have an MDC healing forum, a locked one that the public cannot see. Then there is no embarrassment for MDC for being called out and discussed by members. All well functioning corporations have a vent place or session. It helps heal the community. We can't just bottle up how we feel if we feel something unfair has happened. It only creates an undercurrent of unease, sarcasm, innuendo and then a breaking point where one or more members explode and lose their
memberships. (which is rife here and has been for a while now) Lack of healing/venting isn't conducive to NFL. We can call out members, but we can't call out those with power. Our only vent outlet is a PM. A one on one thing where things can be hidden. I like full disclosure. It is only fair.
If a rule is in place for deletion without reason, then a forum MUST be created for complaints and discussion between members/friends and/or the powers-that-be (but not nec the powers-that-be, most of the healing would be done between the members).
If this had happened earlier, a whole mass of offshoot message boards may not have been created with the very purpose of venting about MDC and healing from what they feel is unfair treatment. The choice seems to be the internet full of rage at MDC or MDC self-containing it and having a chance to manage it themselves.
|7. Do not post to excessively debate or criticize the MDC User Agreement, or to otherwise discuss the moderators, administrators, or their actions. Constructive criticism and questions for purposes of clarification are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator by private message or personal e-mail. If this is not successful, see Recourse (highlight).
The bold should say "only" not "best". There is no other option. Which is one of the many reasons for my suggestion.
|8. Do not post to discuss the statements or behavior of a member or members on the board, or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Such issues should be directed to the member, moderator or administrator privately and not made a subject of potentially defaming discussion in a thread.
Pretty much the only thing we do is discuss the statements of a member of the board. What does this rule mean exactly? Was that meant to say criticize? Cos we also criticize what other members say. It's part of a normal discussion.Addition:
The overall expectation of "compliance" is irritating (hence more reason for a forum to vent in). It is put into pm's to members when they have an issue - comply with a mod. Comply with their interpretation of a post. Why this is inherently wrong is because making a judgment call on a word or an entire post is subjective, too subjective to end with "comply" as the result to recourse.
I also caution that the spirituality and religious studies forums are filled with majority religions - heavily Christ religions and fundamental ones with the odd pagan or general spiritual thread. It wasn't always like that, not that biased anyway. I think MDC needs to look at why, because as I've seen it happen, they've come down too hard on those with an opposing opinion and members have left in disgust (or been banned). It's being discussed around and outside MDC that there is some kind of takeover going on, a kind of historically familiar erradication of sorts(hey, thought you'd want to know). Things being called "offensive" that are not - again, subjective removal of people or their words. Seemingly to placate those who have always and still do have the majority and the power and the ease of religious expression.ADDITION:
In the interests of not starting a new post, Mackenzie, can you clarify what you mean by:
|I do not want to see issues like spaking, RIC etc....lumped together with issues like racism and heterocentrism. While I think non-violence and mutilation are VERY important, I DO NOT want to see unchangeable, non-choice based VERY sensetive issues devalued, even a little because they CANNOT afford it.
because I think Ard was trying to place value
on them, not devalue them.