CDB, I am glad you are back and I hope I can lend you as well as some others who would return some protection of trust and safety here to write more freely. The railroading of you by invasion of privacy was one of the more infamous times of abuse on FFL. That personalized invasion of your privacy was a low point on FFL that was way against Rick's original intentions for the site and clearly against what are now the yahoo-groups guidelines. Yours was proly not the moment of decline but the list had evidently jumped a shark before with an influx of personal antagonisms which have since developed into some literary forms of perfection in a hyper personalization of the ad hominem meme here to hurt people.
Folks are now making a lot of assumptions about my feelings about content. I had long interviews with Rick about this in coming in to the job of FFL CEO. However, my coming in to the FFL CEO [Chief Enforcement Officer] of yahoo's groups-guidelines is not about content but is about the personalization of unkindness that has become cultural on FFL, like the unkindness you experienced. Generally going forward now, folks should expect that their posts will be summarily deleted where unkindness crosses in to violation of the yahoo-groups guidelines. The guidelines are really quite simple and the many sophist-icated and several of our professional writers here can take the time for self-restraint before they may push their send button to FFL. Writing more generally, soon I am going to start following Rick's lead on this and start to delete posts or more made to the list without warning where the invective in writing is personalized. Yes it is fine to comment, deal with and thoughtfully consider content but if folks are having arguments that are personal they should just take themselves offline and spare FFL. Going forward, personalized name-calling that is degrading, disrespectful or humiliating will quickly be seen to become abuse on FFL. Read through the yahoo-groups guidelines and reflect. Where it is at all evident just expect to be moderated one way or another by any of the moderators without explanation. Generally, I do not expect to spend much time editing at all on this or discussing this, particularly with trolls at all. Take the time to read over the yahoo-groups guidelines and write accordingly. Error well on the side of kindness and you will be well within the yahoo-groups guidelines and fine. I appreciate and understand that some lot of folks here spend a lot of their life energy and time composing things to post on FFL. Going forward now, self-regulate yourselves according to the yahoo guidelines error-ing well on the side of kindness and save yourself your time invested in writing. Having to delete posts is a terrible waste of your time and my time as well to have to do it. CDB, I am glad you are back. -JaiGuruYou P.S., The Yahoo-groups Guidelines: https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm https://policies.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/guidelines/groups/index.htm # Jumping the shark is an idiom created by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show ..and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irreparably from its original premise. ..The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise or creative effort's evolution declines. # ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote : Thanks Judy, I had not seen that and it does answer some of my concerns about Rick's intentions as well as supports your view that it is OK to use Doug's real name officially. Much appreciated. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I think this excess of caution from you and others, frankly, is just another way to express resistance to the new moderation regime, by making it seem far more onerous than it has any likelihood of turning out to be. Me: I don't see the connection. You don't? Huh. I should think it would be obvious. The worse it's projected to be, the greater the justification for opposing it. You are welcome to any interpretation you want to believe but my reasons were as stated. J: Doug will get bounced as moderator by Rick if he overdoes things, and he knows it. Me: When he let Richard back on I realized that I am on my own here and I have no trust in the system to protect my interests here. What is considered as overdoing is highly subjective. See the quotes from Rick's posts below. I don't think there's much reason to expect him to go along with oppressive moderation given his past history, both with FFL and with the movement. J: What Rick wants is for the horrific personal abuse to stop. Me: I don't know what evidence you have to support this statement either in its main point or your personal added spin. My guess is that Rick got sick of his bugging him about it and just wanted it to stop which I suspect is the same way Richard got back on within a month of being banned. Again, see the quotes below. It wasn't just Doug. (And I wasn't one of those who contacted him, just for the record.) J: Doug has various tools at his disposal short of banishment, including warnings and setting an individual's posts to come to him for approval before posting. Let's all relax and see what happens rather than expecting the worst and protesting it in advance. Me: I find the idea that he is the judge of any of my posts repugnant but I accept your last sentence as a bit of wisdom that applies. Quotes from Rick's posts here: Almost daily, various people urge me to moderate FFL or get someone to do it. With BatGap and my other responsibilities, I don’t have the time. I believe in very minimal moderation, at least for FFL. I think the “anything goes” nature of it has contributed to its success and longevity. But I think we are obligated to at least abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. Theoretically, frequent violation of those guidelines could get the group shut down. Doug Hamilton has volunteered to moderate and to limit his moderation to ensuring adherence to Yahoo’s guidelines and no more. He will not moderate with his puritanical Buck alter-ego. I know some will bristle at what they perceive as a restriction of their freedom of speech, but different types of speech are appropriate in different contexts, and again, in the context of a Yahoo group, we are obligated to abide by Yahoo’s guidelines. So I’m going to try this and see how it goes. If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416427 I give little attention to FFL because I’m so busy with other things. But I’ve gotten so many complaints recently that I may appoint a moderator soon, and will announce it when I do. I don’t believe in censorship, but I also don’t believe in enabling abusive behavior. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/416362 J: As to Doug's last name in the header of his posts, to see it, do this: Click Reply to any of his posts, then click the downward arrows to the left of the Subject line, then click the downward arrow to the right of the TO: line. Click any of the email addresses shown to send your message to that address. E.g., the one that says "dhamilton2K5@..." will put that address in the TO: field and thus send him a personal email. Me: I accept your point for you but still don't trust it for me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : I didn't snip it as a statement about your posting it Judy. I am just exercising and abundance of caution in these changing times where I don't expect the benefit of any doubt. I looked back at a few of Buck's posts and didn't see his name so until he directly says it is OK to me I am trying to avoid it in any thread I am posting on. I agree with your point but I don't believe you would ever be a target of the new regime while I might be. It is a bit sensitive for me because a poster here began a campaign to post my full name by quoting any post where it occurred. I believe that you are expressing the spirit of the law, but sometimes it is the spirit that is weak while the flesh is enthusiastically willing! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Regarding your snippage below, Rick's policy has always been that the use of real names is prohibited only if the person wishes to remain anonymous. Doug uses his real first name to sign his posts, and his last name is in the header of his posts, so there was no need to snip it. Mine isn't in the header (it used to be pre-Neo and was on alt.m.t), and I don't sign my posts, but I've never objected to my real name being used; I prefer it to my authfriend handle, in fact.
