Damned if I do, damned if I don't...

[nightwind69]

Sometimes, I regret ever having the idea to create the Cell. Sometimes, it's more trouble than it's worth and at times it's been way more of an emotional drain than it really needs to be, although perhaps that's only because, at those times, I allowed it to be an emotional drain. But you know, I've found that it does get easier to handle over time

Comments

[dinogrrrl]

Further to HT's comments about TMNT forums, it reminded me of something I was thinking about earlier.

One of the problems I think there is with getting people in the Cell to take what you say as a rule, is that most of them see you as friend or fellow-fan first, and Boss second. This can really create a problem with having them not only respect rules but to actually treat them like rules instead of topics for discussion, which seems to be what many are doing right now.

One of the more effective ways I've seen to manage this on a board is to have not only definite rules, but definite consequences for breaking them. My Mother, bless her, was a disciplinarian who applied the 'warnings' model, wherein she explained the rules clearly and then gave me one or two warnings if I broke them, to be followed reliably and promptly by a punishment if I broke it again in quick succession. Perhaps there needs to be a more definite set of consequences for the rule breakers.

A couple of other forums, both fandom and political had a three warning system where the first rule break was a mild warning, the second more strenuous and the third the final. Another stuff up resulted in suspension for a specified period or banning. Banning is a hard core punishment and isn't really necessary, whereas suspension can come in handy. The warnings weren't permanent either, for example, perhaps each warning could have a life of a month, and if no other warning was acquired within that month then the warning would be removed. If another warning was earned in the month period, the period would extend back out to a month from the time of the second warning and so on. Many places had formal 'modsmack' banners they used to indicate that a warning was applied.

A large politics forum I used to hang at instituted a series of measures around the 2000 elections wherein a rule break resulted in a warning from the mod and a second resulted in a weeks' suspension. Obviously this sort of thing probably entails more work, but can also have the effect of getting across the notion that these are RULES not discussion points. Don't get me wrong, I can foresee the bitch-whining about it from here and it would probably trigger some to leave, but most boards are moderated far more stringently than the Cell. I just feel there is a lack of respect for your ability to order people to stop certain behaviours, again linked to the fact that they see you as their pal and fail to realise it's not a democracy in there.

Anyway, just another hairball my brain hacked up while I was in the shower. :P

[nightwind69]

In theory, a system such as you suggest is a good idea. In fact, the Cell had such a policy before half the staff resigned, although it was never really enforced. And that, as I see it, is the problem with such a system. It requires constant monitoring and a clear delineation of what earns a smack and what does not. And even when the Cell had a larger staff, such close, constant monitoring wasn't usually possible and most people weren't clear about what was and was not acceptable behavior, mostly because I didn't really know what was acceptable or not. And now, the manpower certainly isn't there to monitor things all the time. However, I'm not inclined to assign a bunch of mods to make the policy feasible, either. Tried that, and it didn't work for various reasons, mostly because I became...uncomfortable with certain things. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.

But you're right, I think, that most people on the board -- if they don't outright dislike me -- tend to see me as a friend. Partly, that's because the place started as a board of my friends, of which I was just one of that group of friends, albeit the one who set up the place, and it's just grown from there. And I tend to view the people who post as my friends or at least as potential friends, not people over whom I have some kind of controlling power. And, really, I don't wish to be an ogre. I have my sensitivities, of course; we all do. And my position allows me to enforce my sensitivities, too, yes. But I try not to exercise that "power" too much. There is really only one area that is very sensitive to me, which has, once again, come up this time. Still, there is much that goes on on the board that I personally dislike but that I will tolerate simply because I don't want to make a big deal about it. But that one thing is still a touchy issue for me. And if people can't handle that...Well, then they have a decision to make, indeed.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Too much turkey will do that to you, I suppose. :) I do appreciate your input, Dino, and I really do understand what you're saying. I know that many boards are far more anal and uptight than mine. And on the one hand, I see the wisdom of being anal and uptight, yes. On the other, I tend to think that it's smothering on many different levels. I would rather not smother if possible, at least to the extent that I am able to tolerate. As it is, this latest issue was a minor upheaval in the grand scheme of things. It just prompted me to think, is all. For one thing, I thought about how this might have affected me if it had happened, say, two years ago, and it made me thankful that I'm not in that same place anymore. :)