TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Others have answered this, but my take is that you just described the internet. There are a myriad of sites scoped to specific content, operating as 'cells' run on their own accord by their own people. Picking which ones to visit gives you the 'internet' experience you want. BL is not trying to be everything to everyone, nor would we consider being a drug user's complete internet experience.
We are interested in maintaining our goal of Harm Reduction, which is best accomplished by having all our information readily available across all forums and using our breadth of content to reach the maximum number of people. Perhaps where I went wrong in asking for feedback of this nature is a) not pointing to SUPPORT as the place to put it, instead of this thread; and b ) saying we want ideas that help us achieve our goals. But to come back to transparency, maybe we need to more clearly state what they are?
History lesson (not public knowledge, not a reason to be a secret either) - When we started implementing warnings, it would email the member and list the mod's email as being the 'from'. This exposed our staff to all kinds of hate, spam listings, etc; so it was in effect detrimental to use the way the software worked. The solution was to implement an account (Soup Nazi) from whom these warnings were issued, so as to protect the staff member from having their own email accounts harassed. However, we (sr staff) made it explicitly clear that we expected mods to sign the warnings so the member would know whom to PM, or complain about to sr staff, so there would remain the accountability. Likewise, we asked that warnings be issued with a real comment. Remarks such as 'stay out of my forum' or 'fucking asshole' or 'your moms got great tits' just weren't very helpful in maintaining a public image of respectability, professionalism, or accountability
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Not all mods heeded our request, but not all of these crass warnings were noticed to be followed up on.Fast forward, and we've got the system to stop exposing off-site email accounts of mods. So, the sr. staff 'fixed' the warning system to again tie the mod's name to the warning directly to avoid confusion. There was some discussion in the staff forum on this, but no real objection (actually, mostly agreement) on going forward with this change.
History lesson over
Personally, I don't have too much of a problem with this suggestion. Again, something for SUPPORT, rather than this thread, but whatever. My first question, though, becomes who gets that spot? And would they ever be looked at as not part of the 'in clique' hiding things? Would there be a reasonable limit to what they are not shown 'behind the curtain', because one of the biggest concerns we have as a staff is trust. We've had mods leak information out of the staff forums which was not intended to be public knowledge (ie, mods who have personal contact information shared, or images they share with other trusted staff, or some of the discussions that go on regarding how to handle a person or situation on the site as it arises).
But right now, there is a trust issue for the public with the staff - giving all this money to ... what? Trusting that someone is being banned for legitimate reasons? There is definitely a lot of room for improvement of transparency and accountability. So the ideas are welcome, we just need to see which ones makes sense.
Two points here. First, I don't know how much easier we can make it for posting in SUPPORT. Hell, that forum even allows unregistered (ie, you can log your ass out) people to post in there - that was intended to allow people locked out of their accounts to get a response, but it functions equally well for someone simply wanting to voice a legitimate concern or suggestion anonymously.
Part of me says 'why should we try new ways of getting information when the ones we provide aren't used'....but the other part of me says 'if they aren't being used, maybe we need to try something else?'
As for the attitude of resistance, I'll share a little bit more that the public may not all be aware of (anyone who's been in the LOUNGE more than 3 months will know, but not everyone). auto# is on his third account...at least his third account. In part, this is why there is a notable undertone of hostility towards him from staff and why there is little credibility offered to his ideas. It is unfortunate, because like GM he can come up with some good observations or offer a different opinion. But like some others who have been banned multiple times and are now out of 'extra chances' there isn't a lot of patience left in hearing him.
I say 'unfortunately' because it is hard (we're human too) to remain open minded to people that have proven time and again they can't contribute constructively. Or in the case of auto, they can contribute constructively, but the problems they create have far outweighed the gain and they've had accounts banned. This is not to say I think he should stfu, or anyone who gets banned isn't worth hearing from, but that grain of salt that comes with hearing them out gets bigger and bigger to the point of choking the concept. I say this NOT to air auto's history, but to give a perspective to those reading this and thinking "TLB just said speak up, and when this 'member' does he gets shot down hard". There's a backstory, if you care to trace it out.
First paragraph - aces. Right on the money in that people cannot get better if they aren't told what their doing wrong. If anyone gets reprimanded, they deserve to know why - and I encourage you to ask the mod who did it. However, by the time you're on your second or third warning, much less second or third account, the understanding is you've danced on the wrong side of the law long enough to know what's accepted.
Second part ... I fail to see where the vibe you describe is ongoing, but would beg you to share it with me so we can address such an occurrence. The only part of that I can read is what I mentioned before in relation to persons having multiple bans being given terse, smart ass, or horrid replies as they get edited or warned simply because the staff has worn thin in dealing with them. But as a general rule, if you see such behavior, please let us know.
==============================
Now, I'm only going to make one more reply to this thread for awhile, as I've just mega-responded and it will look like I just hammered auto back into submission
Honestly, I'm trying to take this as 'any response I make is for the next member to walk in off the street - it's not a response to the individual being quoted' I most certainly don't want to scare off anyone with interests, concerns, or a point to be raised - there should be no fear of me flipping them upside down and body slamming them and I do not want to create that impression. I do have a goal in mind, but am taking the time to respond to legitimate concerns and-or ideas as best I can....but those are better handled thru the SUPPORT forum.
